TheBobZadekShowhttp://bobzadek.com
Sat, 23 May 2020 16:07:30 +0000Sat, 23 May 2020 16:07:30 +000060enAll rights reservedfeeds@soundcloud.com (SoundCloud Feeds)The only live libertarian radio show on air all weekend. Sundays on Talk 910 AM in the SF Bay Area and streamed online at http://www.iheart.com/live/talk-910-297/
Call in during the show - Sundays @ 9am Pacific Time: 1-800-345-5639
http://bobzadek.comThe only live libertarian radio show on air all w…TheBobZadekShowfeeds@soundcloud.comTheBobZadekShownohttp://i1.sndcdn.com/avatars-000129228222-su44xc-original.jpgTheBobZadekShowhttp://bobzadek.com
tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/826525627Foot voting > Ballot votingSat, 23 May 2020 16:07:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/foot-voting-ballot-voting
00:52:12TheBobZadekShownoHindu mythology holds that the whole world rests on the back of a turtle. What does the turtle rest on? According to legend, “it’s turtles all the way down.”
While many are pushing for one-world-government to address new challenges like Coronavirus, there is another approach that can be dubbed “Federalism all the way down.” In other words, why stop at devolving power from Federal Government to the states? The more we decentralize power, the more people can effectively “vote with their feet” and choose which turtle– er, jurisdiction– they will reside in.
This is one of the core premises of Ilya Somin’s vitally important new book Free To Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. Somin, a Law professor at George Mason University and blogger at Reason’s The Volokh Conspiracy, has been on my show several times to discuss his work on eminent domain, rational voter ignorance, and most recently, court packing. These topics deal with the delicate balance of powers between majorities and minorities; the voting public and life-time appointed officials. His latest book looks at the most important balance of powers of all – that which exists among the various jurisdictions where people can chose to live.
He finds that the option to vote with one’s feet is often a more powerful lever than the ballot box for getting the political change that we all want, yet feel powerless to achieve.
Tired of calling your congressman or donating to your favorite politicians to no avail? Why not send a stronger message and withdraw your tax dollars from your city or state if you are so unhappy?
Ilya’s new book also contains a bold defense of more open migration from other countries. He takes objections seriously but answers them one-by-one. The right to move should trump the alleged rights of ethnic groups or individuals to exclude on the basis of national origin.
Ilya joined me this Sunday to discuss his new book and the prospects for Federalism in the aftermath of Coronavirus. Will states that innovate safe ways of re-opening their economy be beneficiaries of an exodus out of states that don’t? Could the U.S. relieve global poverty by opening its doors to more immigrants from countries stricken by looming famines?Hindu mythology holds that the whole world rests …Hindu mythology holds that the whole world rests on the back of a turtle. What does the turtle rest on? According to legend, “it’s turtles all the way down.”
While many are pushing for one-world-government to address new challenges like Coronavirus, there is another approach that can be dubbed “Federalism all the way down.” In other words, why stop at devolving power from Federal Government to the states? The more we decentralize power, the more people can effectively “vote with their feet” and choose which turtle– er, jurisdiction– they will reside in.
This is one of the core premises of Ilya Somin’s vitally important new book Free To Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. Somin, a Law professor at George Mason University and blogger at Reason’s The Volokh Conspiracy, has been on my show several times to discuss his work on eminent domain, rational voter ignorance, and most recently, court packing. These topics deal with the delicate balance of powers between majorities and minorities; the voting public and life-time appointed officials. His latest book looks at the most important balance of powers of all – that which exists among the various jurisdictions where people can chose to live.
He finds that the option to vote with one’s feet is often a more powerful lever than the ballot box for getting the political change that we all want, yet feel powerless to achieve.
Tired of calling your congressman or donating to your favorite politicians to no avail? Why not send a stronger message and withdraw your tax dollars from your city or state if you are so unhappy?
Ilya’s new book also contains a bold defense of more open migration from other countries. He takes objections seriously but answers them one-by-one. The right to move should trump the alleged rights of ethnic groups or individuals to exclude on the basis of national origin.
Ilya joined me this Sunday to discuss his new book and the prospects for Federalism in the aftermath of Coronavirus. Will states that innovate safe ways of re-opening their economy be beneficiaries of an exodus out of states that don’t? Could the U.S. relieve global poverty by opening its doors to more immigrants from countries stricken by looming famines?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/821758699John Tamny on Experts vs. the Wisdom of MarketsSat, 16 May 2020 15:22:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/john-tamny-on-experts-vs-the-wisdom-of-markets
00:52:00TheBobZadekShownoJohn Tamny, Director of FreedomWorks's Center for Economic Freedom, makes several important observations about the problem with lockdowns and bans on "non-essential" business that has eluded the so-called "experts":
"Experts are routinely called on as the answer to 'crises,' when it's more realistic to assert that the experts are the crisis," he writes in a recent piece for Real Clear Markets.
In particular, the one-size-fits all diktats handed down from on high prevent the discovery of information from small-scale experiments. Individuals, acting freely as adults, possess local knowledge, which accumulates and multiplies across the millions of participants in society. This phenomenon has been called "the wisdom of crowds," but perhaps the "wisdom of markets" would be a better term.
Thankfully, the crowds are beginning to wake up, and along with them, markets are coming back to life without any central planning required.
Buy on AmazonTwo weeks ago, Randal O'Toole showed how government distorts incentives in transportation, and how that distortion has exacerbated the COVID-19 epidemic in New York City via mismanaged mass transit. Yet we continue to pour billions into these failing systems. When the market operates without intervention, mistakes tend to be limited - not subsidized - and the firms and individuals with bad judgment quickly go out of business.
Ideally, Tamny notes, the government wouldn't need to declare an end to the shutdown - people could simply re-open as they see fit, taking into account the risks and rewards, and learning from each other's experience.
Some will say that this situation is different because of the invisible nature of the coronavirus, and its infectious potential. Tamny is no stranger to this refrain that "this time it's different." He joins me this Sunday to debunk the central planning "one-size-solution" crowd and to discuss his article, "Don't Plan to Reopen; Just Reopen," for the American Institute for Economic Research.
We'll dissect the recent stock market rally - is it a Fed-inflated bubble or something more sustainable? Tamny is an optimist, assuming people are allowed to go back to work on their own schedule, rather than on the governors' fickle timing.
Finally, we discuss the possibility that states are exceeding their constitutional powers in continuing the lockdowns. Are we witnessing the kinds of "grassroots tyranny" that Clint Bolick warned of decades ago? And if so, should the Federal government step in as Trump seems to want to do, or is there another solution?John Tamny, Director of FreedomWorks's Center for…John Tamny, Director of FreedomWorks's Center for Economic Freedom, makes several important observations about the problem with lockdowns and bans on "non-essential" business that has eluded the so-called "experts":
"Experts are routinely called on as the answer to 'crises,' when it's more realistic to assert that the experts are the crisis," he writes in a recent piece for Real Clear Markets.
In particular, the one-size-fits all diktats handed down from on high prevent the discovery of information from small-scale experiments. Individuals, acting freely as adults, possess local knowledge, which accumulates and multiplies across the millions of participants in society. This phenomenon has been called "the wisdom of crowds," but perhaps the "wisdom of markets" would be a better term.
Thankfully, the crowds are beginning to wake up, and along with them, markets are coming back to life without any central planning required.
Buy on AmazonTwo weeks ago, Randal O'Toole showed how government distorts incentives in transportation, and how that distortion has exacerbated the COVID-19 epidemic in New York City via mismanaged mass transit. Yet we continue to pour billions into these failing systems. When the market operates without intervention, mistakes tend to be limited - not subsidized - and the firms and individuals with bad judgment quickly go out of business.
Ideally, Tamny notes, the government wouldn't need to declare an end to the shutdown - people could simply re-open as they see fit, taking into account the risks and rewards, and learning from each other's experience.
Some will say that this situation is different because of the invisible nature of the coronavirus, and its infectious potential. Tamny is no stranger to this refrain that "this time it's different." He joins me this Sunday to debunk the central planning "one-size-solution" crowd and to discuss his article, "Don't Plan to Reopen; Just Reopen," for the American Institute for Economic Research.
We'll dissect the recent stock market rally - is it a Fed-inflated bubble or something more sustainable? Tamny is an optimist, assuming people are allowed to go back to work on their own schedule, rather than on the governors' fickle timing.
Finally, we discuss the possibility that states are exceeding their constitutional powers in continuing the lockdowns. Are we witnessing the kinds of "grassroots tyranny" that Clint Bolick warned of decades ago? And if so, should the Federal government step in as Trump seems to want to do, or is there another solution?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/814897300Never let a good crisis go to waste: Randal O'Toole on Rethinking Public Transit post-COVID TWed, 06 May 2020 16:51:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste-randal-otoole-on-rethinking-public-transit-post-covid-t
00:51:53TheBobZadekShownoThe words "never let a good crisis go to waste," spoken by then-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, are seared into many libertarians' minds as a concise formula of the central planner's mindset.
We've seen massive stimulus rammed through with little deliberation, including fat subsidies for transit agencies. Randal O'Toole, aka " the Antiplanner," has shown how central transportation planning epitomizes the misguided use of federal funds - diverting resources to expensive, energy-inefficient, underutilized "mass transit." As if that weren't bad enough, it's looking like mass transit is a key vector in the spread of mass disease.
In his April 17 Cato at Liberty post, ' Why Are Transit Systems Still Running?', O'Toole observes, "I don't think it is a coincidence that 44 percent of all transit rides in 2019 took place in the New York‐northern New Jersey urban area and, at last count, 45 percent of all COVID-19 fatalities were recorded in this same area."
So why is the disease vector known as mass transit running while many other industries have been deemed "non-essential"? Once again, the contradictions in the government's response are revealing what most of us already knew - that science always takes a back seat to special interests.
Randal "Antiplanner" O'Toole returned to the show this past Sunday to step back from the emotional arguments surrounding COVID-19 and discuss whether it's time to re-assess the role of public transportation in American life. His brand-new report identifies transit as an "urban parasite," sucking up more and more resources despite declining ridership, and a growing maintenance backlog. The report shows the growing irrelevance of transit to most Americans' lives everywhere except NYC, where it is proving relevant but deadly.
As transit systems begin to hemorrhage in the wake of even further reduced ridership from fears of contagion, the taxpayer will have to bear more of the burden. Randal suggests privatizing transportation and letting the services stand on their own two legs. While this may seem radical, many have noted how the Coronavirus shutdown has expanded the "Overton Window" - making previously impossible reforms more likely.
Perhaps Rahm was right, and we libertarians shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste either.The words "never let a good crisis go to waste," …The words "never let a good crisis go to waste," spoken by then-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, are seared into many libertarians' minds as a concise formula of the central planner's mindset.
We've seen massive stimulus rammed through with little deliberation, including fat subsidies for transit agencies. Randal O'Toole, aka " the Antiplanner," has shown how central transportation planning epitomizes the misguided use of federal funds - diverting resources to expensive, energy-inefficient, underutilized "mass transit." As if that weren't bad enough, it's looking like mass transit is a key vector in the spread of mass disease.
In his April 17 Cato at Liberty post, ' Why Are Transit Systems Still Running?', O'Toole observes, "I don't think it is a coincidence that 44 percent of all transit rides in 2019 took place in the New York‐northern New Jersey urban area and, at last count, 45 percent of all COVID-19 fatalities were recorded in this same area."
So why is the disease vector known as mass transit running while many other industries have been deemed "non-essential"? Once again, the contradictions in the government's response are revealing what most of us already knew - that science always takes a back seat to special interests.
Randal "Antiplanner" O'Toole returned to the show this past Sunday to step back from the emotional arguments surrounding COVID-19 and discuss whether it's time to re-assess the role of public transportation in American life. His brand-new report identifies transit as an "urban parasite," sucking up more and more resources despite declining ridership, and a growing maintenance backlog. The report shows the growing irrelevance of transit to most Americans' lives everywhere except NYC, where it is proving relevant but deadly.
As transit systems begin to hemorrhage in the wake of even further reduced ridership from fears of contagion, the taxpayer will have to bear more of the burden. Randal suggests privatizing transportation and letting the services stand on their own two legs. While this may seem radical, many have noted how the Coronavirus shutdown has expanded the "Overton Window" - making previously impossible reforms more likely.
Perhaps Rahm was right, and we libertarians shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste either.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/813402949Prime time for the PRIME ActMon, 04 May 2020 16:17:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/prime-time-for-the-prime-act
00:51:40TheBobZadekShownoSince well before the current lockdowns, Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie has been raising an alarm about the monopolistic and over-regulated meat processing industry, which leaves our food supply vulnerable to unexpected disruptions.
It took the COVID-19 crisis to get his colleagues in the House of Representatives to take the issue seriously, but a bill to address looming meat shortages with a local, free-market solution is finally making headway with bipartisan support.
Massie joined the Show of Ideas on Sunday (5/3, 8–9am PACIFIC) with an urgent message for all Americans, as the common-sense reform in his PRIME Act challenges special interests who want to keep a lockdown on smaller-scale meat processing.
Urge your representative to vote for the PRIME Act, and tune into this special show featuring Congressman Massie on his new bill:Since well before the current lockdowns, Kentucky…Since well before the current lockdowns, Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie has been raising an alarm about the monopolistic and over-regulated meat processing industry, which leaves our food supply vulnerable to unexpected disruptions.
It took the COVID-19 crisis to get his colleagues in the House of Representatives to take the issue seriously, but a bill to address looming meat shortages with a local, free-market solution is finally making headway with bipartisan support.
Massie joined the Show of Ideas on Sunday (5/3, 8–9am PACIFIC) with an urgent message for all Americans, as the common-sense reform in his PRIME Act challenges special interests who want to keep a lockdown on smaller-scale meat processing.
Urge your representative to vote for the PRIME Act, and tune into this special show featuring Congressman Massie on his new bill:tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/799114537Unprepared: Government Failure at the CDC/FDAWed, 15 Apr 2020 09:20:48 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/unprepared-government-failure-at-the-cdcfda
00:51:28TheBobZadekShownoAlex Tabarrok on the CDC and FDA's 'Failure of Historic Proportions'
College students who are assigned Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok's Modern Principles of Economics learn the twin concepts of market failure and government failure. To teach the former without the latter, as some textbooks do, is to present a lop-sided picture of the world and to romanticize governmental solutions that often do more harm than good.
Coronavirus is making this lesson tragically real, as federal agencies like the CDC and FDA have been caught off-guard by the outbreak and subsequently stoked the public's fears while failing to provide solutions.
I was recently joined by Marginal Revolution blogger and George Mason University economics chair Alex Tabarrok. He explained how these agencies' responses to COVID-19 has been a 'Failure of Historic Proportions.' Alex was recently interviewed by Reason's Nick Gillespie on the subject, and elaborates in our interview on the urgent need for government to foster the conditions for markets to function.
Alex also talked about the hindrances to new drug approval per the framework he developed with FDAReview.org.
Watch Alex's free online economics courses at MRUniversity.com and listen or read the transcript to understand how the economy can recovery faster with the help of better policy and the "invisible hand."Alex Tabarrok on the CDC and FDA's 'Failure of Hi…Alex Tabarrok on the CDC and FDA's 'Failure of Historic Proportions'
College students who are assigned Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok's Modern Principles of Economics learn the twin concepts of market failure and government failure. To teach the former without the latter, as some textbooks do, is to present a lop-sided picture of the world and to romanticize governmental solutions that often do more harm than good.
Coronavirus is making this lesson tragically real, as federal agencies like the CDC and FDA have been caught off-guard by the outbreak and subsequently stoked the public's fears while failing to provide solutions.
I was recently joined by Marginal Revolution blogger and George Mason University economics chair Alex Tabarrok. He explained how these agencies' responses to COVID-19 has been a 'Failure of Historic Proportions.' Alex was recently interviewed by Reason's Nick Gillespie on the subject, and elaborates in our interview on the urgent need for government to foster the conditions for markets to function.
Alex also talked about the hindrances to new drug approval per the framework he developed with FDAReview.org.
Watch Alex's free online economics courses at MRUniversity.com and listen or read the transcript to understand how the economy can recovery faster with the help of better policy and the "invisible hand."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/796101649The Single Most Common Economic Fallacy in COVID-19 Reporting (with Don Boudreax)Sat, 11 Apr 2020 15:04:06 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-single-most-common-economic-fallacy-in-covid-19-reporting-with-don-boudreax
00:51:45TheBobZadekShownoLast week I shared my curated COVID-19 reading list, which is keeping me relaxed and confident in my belief that we are overreacting. While we should worry about the incursions of civil and economic freedoms being brought about in response, people like Jacob Sullum of Reason and Jeffrey Tucker of AIER are doing a service by calming people down about the virus itself.
Don Boudreaux over at Cafe Hayek also deserves special mention for leading me to most of my trusted sources with his blog's daily links. It's hard to keep up with all of the outstanding writing he's highlighted over the past weeks, including his own increasingly relevant review of Robert Higgs's Crisis and Leviathan for the American Institute for Economic Research, and a must-read article for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Essential Questions about Essential Medicine.
Twitter has reportedly begun to censor non-certified-expert advice on matters related to the coronavirus, so I will limit this Sunday's show to the subject of economics and politics where we are still free to opine (for now). I predict that future economics and political science students will look back in horror at this period - not for the mortality rate, which appears to be marginally higher than an average flu season - but for the acquiescence to draconian restrictions, unprecedented spending, and enlargement of state, local and federal bureaucracy (not to mention the failure of basic functions by the existing apparatus, i.e., FDA).
Most media analysis misses what Frédéric Bastiat called "that which is unseen." Dead bodies being carted away by truck to the morgue is a striking image, and is seen by millions on media loop. Business closures, economic hardship, and looming inflation are harder to see and thus get downplayed in the calculus.
Trump's "VERY BIG & BOLD" $2 trillion stimulus produces highly visible benefits in the short-term, but the costs are unseen - postponed to be paid by future generations.
Don returned to the show to help me settle the question on all thinking people's minds: is it worth it?
Is it worth the loss of liberty?
Is it worth trillions in damage to the economy?
Is it worth the separation from friends, family, and the myriad economic relationships that have been severed?
For the sake of argument, Don and I will assume that the more dire predictions about mortality are true.
Join us in asking the hard but important questions on the show of idea - not attitude.Last week I shared my curated COVID-19 reading li…Last week I shared my curated COVID-19 reading list, which is keeping me relaxed and confident in my belief that we are overreacting. While we should worry about the incursions of civil and economic freedoms being brought about in response, people like Jacob Sullum of Reason and Jeffrey Tucker of AIER are doing a service by calming people down about the virus itself.
Don Boudreaux over at Cafe Hayek also deserves special mention for leading me to most of my trusted sources with his blog's daily links. It's hard to keep up with all of the outstanding writing he's highlighted over the past weeks, including his own increasingly relevant review of Robert Higgs's Crisis and Leviathan for the American Institute for Economic Research, and a must-read article for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Essential Questions about Essential Medicine.
Twitter has reportedly begun to censor non-certified-expert advice on matters related to the coronavirus, so I will limit this Sunday's show to the subject of economics and politics where we are still free to opine (for now). I predict that future economics and political science students will look back in horror at this period - not for the mortality rate, which appears to be marginally higher than an average flu season - but for the acquiescence to draconian restrictions, unprecedented spending, and enlargement of state, local and federal bureaucracy (not to mention the failure of basic functions by the existing apparatus, i.e., FDA).
Most media analysis misses what Frédéric Bastiat called "that which is unseen." Dead bodies being carted away by truck to the morgue is a striking image, and is seen by millions on media loop. Business closures, economic hardship, and looming inflation are harder to see and thus get downplayed in the calculus.
Trump's "VERY BIG & BOLD" $2 trillion stimulus produces highly visible benefits in the short-term, but the costs are unseen - postponed to be paid by future generations.
Don returned to the show to help me settle the question on all thinking people's minds: is it worth it?
Is it worth the loss of liberty?
Is it worth trillions in damage to the economy?
Is it worth the separation from friends, family, and the myriad economic relationships that have been severed?
For the sake of argument, Don and I will assume that the more dire predictions about mortality are true.
Join us in asking the hard but important questions on the show of idea - not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/787833085Homelessness & Housing Policy in the Golden StateTue, 31 Mar 2020 19:40:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/homelessness-housing-policy-in-the-golden-state
00:52:03TheBobZadekShownoLawrence McQuillan, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation at the Independent Institute, connects the dots in his new report on California's dysfunctional housing policy. How to Restore the California Dreamexplains how the "Golden State" became the poster child for high housing costs and, relatedly, homelessness.Lawrence McQuillan, a Senior Fellow and Director …Lawrence McQuillan, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation at the Independent Institute, connects the dots in his new report on California's dysfunctional housing policy. How to Restore the California Dreamexplains how the "Golden State" became the poster child for high housing costs and, relatedly, homelessness.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/774723193How to Leverage Resources for Maximum LibertyThu, 12 Mar 2020 03:17:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-to-leverage-resources-for-maximum-liberty
00:52:01TheBobZadekShownoMuch like the entrepreneurs they serve, the Atlas Network also leverages scarce resources for maximum impact. They have cultivated a global network of think tanks working behind the scenes to advance free market competition and accelerate international development.
While the "problem" of development has stymied well-funded academics, and supranational government bodies, Atlas has used the same "engage and exchange" formula time and time again to spur growth and entrepreneurship without accepting a penny from any government or quasi-government institutions.
Matt Warner, the Atlas Network's president, reveals the secrets in his new book Poverty and Freedom: Case Studies on Global Economic Development. Warner recognizes development as an opportunity - not a problem. The case studies from the dozens of Atlas-supported think tanks around the world show that solutions are not handed down from on high by all-knowing government officials but discovered on the ground. Through the broader Poverty and Freedom initiative, Atlas Network is "harnessing local visions for change to free people to carve paths out of poverty." The secret is property rights, aligning incentives, finding key partners and building bottom-up coalitions. Warner is a dissenter in the world of development economics and a self-described "positive deviant."Much like the entrepreneurs they serve, the Atlas…Much like the entrepreneurs they serve, the Atlas Network also leverages scarce resources for maximum impact. They have cultivated a global network of think tanks working behind the scenes to advance free market competition and accelerate international development.
While the "problem" of development has stymied well-funded academics, and supranational government bodies, Atlas has used the same "engage and exchange" formula time and time again to spur growth and entrepreneurship without accepting a penny from any government or quasi-government institutions.
Matt Warner, the Atlas Network's president, reveals the secrets in his new book Poverty and Freedom: Case Studies on Global Economic Development. Warner recognizes development as an opportunity - not a problem. The case studies from the dozens of Atlas-supported think tanks around the world show that solutions are not handed down from on high by all-knowing government officials but discovered on the ground. Through the broader Poverty and Freedom initiative, Atlas Network is "harnessing local visions for change to free people to carve paths out of poverty." The secret is property rights, aligning incentives, finding key partners and building bottom-up coalitions. Warner is a dissenter in the world of development economics and a self-described "positive deviant."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/769533700Reviewing Judicial Review with Keith WhittingtonMon, 02 Mar 2020 14:24:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/reviewing-judicial-review-with-keith-whittington
00:52:12TheBobZadekShownoConstitution geeks, rejoice. The book you've been waiting for has arrived. Repugnant Laws by Keith Whittington (William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton) takes readers under the hood of our system of checks and balances - examining "Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present."
Whittington, who writes for my favorite legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy, joins me live this Sunday. He has written a great deal about impeachment lately, but his real constitutional expertise is the main check that the judiciary exercises over the legislature - its ability to overturn state and federal laws which it deems unconstitutional.
The power of judicial review was first discovered by the Supreme Court in the infamous case of Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall opined that "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." (Who else but the courts could decide when a law enacted by Congress is repugnant to the Constitution?)
Since then, the makeup of the courts has influenced the direction of policy in subtle but powerful ways. Whittington's book analyzes thousands of cases in which the Supreme Court either upheld or overturned federal laws. He applies the precision of a scientist (a political scientist, that is) to questions of politicization and examines whether an activist judiciary is antidemocratic.
RealClear Politics reports that President Trump is "Remaking the Federal Judiciary at a Historic Rate". According to Whittington's data, this will influence political outcomes for decades to come. But while judicial appointees may tend to side with the dominant political coalitions, he notes that they do not make their decisions along strict ideological lines.
I have previously explored whether the courts should exercise restraint in allowing lawmakers to craft a wide range of legislation (see Overruling Government Overreach: Damon Root on the Libertarian Legal Movement).
I have also argued in favor of a more activist judiciary, which defends individual rights from being overridden by majority rule, and believe that the courts are the last bulwark against excessive democracy. However, everyone seems to be in favor of judicial activism when it favors his or her politics. That explains why restraint and "minimalism" are in vogue among liberals when the conservatives are in power, and vice versa.
Find out why Randy Barnett says Repugnant Laws is "Simply a must-read for any serious student of our Constitution and how it actually works."
Listen to hear the condensed version of Whittington's monumental findings.Constitution geeks, rejoice. The book you've been…Constitution geeks, rejoice. The book you've been waiting for has arrived. Repugnant Laws by Keith Whittington (William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton) takes readers under the hood of our system of checks and balances - examining "Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present."
Whittington, who writes for my favorite legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy, joins me live this Sunday. He has written a great deal about impeachment lately, but his real constitutional expertise is the main check that the judiciary exercises over the legislature - its ability to overturn state and federal laws which it deems unconstitutional.
The power of judicial review was first discovered by the Supreme Court in the infamous case of Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall opined that "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." (Who else but the courts could decide when a law enacted by Congress is repugnant to the Constitution?)
Since then, the makeup of the courts has influenced the direction of policy in subtle but powerful ways. Whittington's book analyzes thousands of cases in which the Supreme Court either upheld or overturned federal laws. He applies the precision of a scientist (a political scientist, that is) to questions of politicization and examines whether an activist judiciary is antidemocratic.
RealClear Politics reports that President Trump is "Remaking the Federal Judiciary at a Historic Rate". According to Whittington's data, this will influence political outcomes for decades to come. But while judicial appointees may tend to side with the dominant political coalitions, he notes that they do not make their decisions along strict ideological lines.
I have previously explored whether the courts should exercise restraint in allowing lawmakers to craft a wide range of legislation (see Overruling Government Overreach: Damon Root on the Libertarian Legal Movement).
I have also argued in favor of a more activist judiciary, which defends individual rights from being overridden by majority rule, and believe that the courts are the last bulwark against excessive democracy. However, everyone seems to be in favor of judicial activism when it favors his or her politics. That explains why restraint and "minimalism" are in vogue among liberals when the conservatives are in power, and vice versa.
Find out why Randy Barnett says Repugnant Laws is "Simply a must-read for any serious student of our Constitution and how it actually works."
Listen to hear the condensed version of Whittington's monumental findings.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/761729674Big government can't save us from coronavirusSun, 16 Feb 2020 20:17:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/big-government-cant-save-us-from-coronavirus
00:51:51TheBobZadekShownoAs Robert Higgs trenchantly observed in his book Crisis and Leviathan, central planning is a one-way ratchet. Governments take advantage of a crisis to introduce previously unimaginable restrictions on freedom in the name of public safety. We allow permanent erosions to the bedrock of liberty under the guise of temporary expediency.
In responding to the Coronavirus outbreak, China has ratcheted up its totalitarianism – forcibly taking people from their homes and committing them to “hospital cities,” built overnight using eminent-domain-on-steroids.
Marxist philosopher-clown Slavoj Žižek sees in Wuhan’s state of emergency a silver lining. He writes of “an unexpected emancipatory prospect hidden in this nightmarish vision.”
Brace yourself.
Not only does the crisis provide a pretext for “a new kind of communism,” Žižek suggests that the “half-abandoned streets,” and “stores with open doors and no customers,” actually “provide the image of non-consumerist world at ease with itself.”
If that’s the shot, then the chaser is Jeffrey Tucker’s recent article for the American Institute for Economic Research on the virus. Tucker, AIER’s editorial director asks, Must Government Save Us from the Coronavirus? In short, the answer is no.
While it’s easy to think of Chinese quarantines as something distinctly un-American, he points out that “the US government already has the power to create sick camps, kidnap and intern people upon suspicion that they are diseased, and keep people in camps for an undetermined amount of time.”
Tucker points out that the abuse of these powers is far more common than their discerning use.
What then is to be done?As Robert Higgs trenchantly observed in his book …As Robert Higgs trenchantly observed in his book Crisis and Leviathan, central planning is a one-way ratchet. Governments take advantage of a crisis to introduce previously unimaginable restrictions on freedom in the name of public safety. We allow permanent erosions to the bedrock of liberty under the guise of temporary expediency.
In responding to the Coronavirus outbreak, China has ratcheted up its totalitarianism – forcibly taking people from their homes and committing them to “hospital cities,” built overnight using eminent-domain-on-steroids.
Marxist philosopher-clown Slavoj Žižek sees in Wuhan’s state of emergency a silver lining. He writes of “an unexpected emancipatory prospect hidden in this nightmarish vision.”
Brace yourself.
Not only does the crisis provide a pretext for “a new kind of communism,” Žižek suggests that the “half-abandoned streets,” and “stores with open doors and no customers,” actually “provide the image of non-consumerist world at ease with itself.”
If that’s the shot, then the chaser is Jeffrey Tucker’s recent article for the American Institute for Economic Research on the virus. Tucker, AIER’s editorial director asks, Must Government Save Us from the Coronavirus? In short, the answer is no.
While it’s easy to think of Chinese quarantines as something distinctly un-American, he points out that “the US government already has the power to create sick camps, kidnap and intern people upon suspicion that they are diseased, and keep people in camps for an undetermined amount of time.”
Tucker points out that the abuse of these powers is far more common than their discerning use.
What then is to be done?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/758180839Breaking the Two Party Doom LoopMon, 10 Feb 2020 11:40:28 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/breaking-the-two-party-doom-loop
00:52:05TheBobZadekShownoForget the Iowa Caucus – could the real problem be two-party democracy? Is it time break the duopoly, or as my next guest, Lee Drutman, calls it, the "Two-Party Doom Loop”?
A healthier system might grant far-left voters some representation without forcing the Democratic Party to sacrifice Bernie Sanders – one of their most popular figure-heads – on the altar of winner-takes-all electability.
Drutman notes that whatever the reason for Tuesday’s chaos, it has come at a bad time for American democracy. We are living in one of the most polarized political environments in our history. In his new book,Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America, Drutman traces our evolution from what was basically a multi-party system (including conservative southern Democrats and liberal coastal Republicans) to a true two party system.
This has made compromise nearly impossible and raised the stakes of our elections.
Lee, a senior Fellow, Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation and writer for Vox, FiveThirtyEight, and the New York Times, joined me live to discuss the way out of the vicious cycle of polarization we’re in.Forget the Iowa Caucus – could the real problem b…Forget the Iowa Caucus – could the real problem be two-party democracy? Is it time break the duopoly, or as my next guest, Lee Drutman, calls it, the "Two-Party Doom Loop”?
A healthier system might grant far-left voters some representation without forcing the Democratic Party to sacrifice Bernie Sanders – one of their most popular figure-heads – on the altar of winner-takes-all electability.
Drutman notes that whatever the reason for Tuesday’s chaos, it has come at a bad time for American democracy. We are living in one of the most polarized political environments in our history. In his new book,Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America, Drutman traces our evolution from what was basically a multi-party system (including conservative southern Democrats and liberal coastal Republicans) to a true two party system.
This has made compromise nearly impossible and raised the stakes of our elections.
Lee, a senior Fellow, Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation and writer for Vox, FiveThirtyEight, and the New York Times, joined me live to discuss the way out of the vicious cycle of polarization we’re in.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/755115490Remember when kids were free to be kids?Tue, 04 Feb 2020 21:27:26 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/remember-when-kids-were-free-to-be-kids
00:52:24TheBobZadekShownoThis Sunday, Lenore Skenazy - aka the “World’s Worst Mom” - returns to the show to discuss the latest trends in coddling vs. free range parenting.
My home movies from Queens, New York circa 1947 show me and my best friend Susan playing with cap pistols, water pistols, a ping pong ball gun, a Red Ryder B B gun, toy tin soldiers, a boy scout knife, and a toy machine gun with blinking red lights.
Yet not one of my friends died of gunshot wounds. In fact most of us are afraid of guns.
Maybe zero tolerance is not that necessary. Perhaps some of the societal measures we are taking to protect children are even backfiring.
We hear non-stop coverage of school shootings and child predators while the threat of Childhood Lack of Resilience Syndrome (CLORS) goes virtually unreported.
Symptoms of CLORS include easily bruised feelings, obesity, depression, lack of curiosity, and fear of exposure to new ideas once the child leaves home for college. Professor Jonathan Haidt (founder of Heterodox Academy and a co-founder with Lenore Skenazy of LetGrow.org) has observed many patients in the advanced stages and found the condition notoriously difficult to cure.
They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lenore Skenazy has been offering the equivalent of a CLORS vaccine since her national debut as “World’s Worst Mom” in 2008 when she wrote an article titled, Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone, (New York Post, April 1, 2008).
Since then, she’s been leading the Free Range Kids movement – defending victims of a false hysteria that presumes all strangers “guilty until proven innocent,” despite falling crime rates. She last joined me to discuss her LetGrow initiative – helping parents let go of their helicoptering, and letting kids grow into functioning adults.
I’m thrilled to welcome Lenore back to the show this Sunday to review the latest threats our kids’ freedom to be kids – from the War on Recess to reading logs.
Mark my words – the “War on Recess" will fare just like every other government “War on [fill-in-the-blank].”
As this article in Harvard Health Publishing confirms, kids need sunshine, risk, and socialization to become functioning adults.
Lastly, we’ll discuss Utah’s new law that protects parents from the charge of neglect when they let their kids play outside by themselves. Ahh, the sweet smell of Federalism!
Follow her latest project at LetGrow.com, and tune in live to the show of ideas – not attitude.This Sunday, Lenore Skenazy - aka the “World’s Wo…This Sunday, Lenore Skenazy - aka the “World’s Worst Mom” - returns to the show to discuss the latest trends in coddling vs. free range parenting.
My home movies from Queens, New York circa 1947 show me and my best friend Susan playing with cap pistols, water pistols, a ping pong ball gun, a Red Ryder B B gun, toy tin soldiers, a boy scout knife, and a toy machine gun with blinking red lights.
Yet not one of my friends died of gunshot wounds. In fact most of us are afraid of guns.
Maybe zero tolerance is not that necessary. Perhaps some of the societal measures we are taking to protect children are even backfiring.
We hear non-stop coverage of school shootings and child predators while the threat of Childhood Lack of Resilience Syndrome (CLORS) goes virtually unreported.
Symptoms of CLORS include easily bruised feelings, obesity, depression, lack of curiosity, and fear of exposure to new ideas once the child leaves home for college. Professor Jonathan Haidt (founder of Heterodox Academy and a co-founder with Lenore Skenazy of LetGrow.org) has observed many patients in the advanced stages and found the condition notoriously difficult to cure.
They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lenore Skenazy has been offering the equivalent of a CLORS vaccine since her national debut as “World’s Worst Mom” in 2008 when she wrote an article titled, Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone, (New York Post, April 1, 2008).
Since then, she’s been leading the Free Range Kids movement – defending victims of a false hysteria that presumes all strangers “guilty until proven innocent,” despite falling crime rates. She last joined me to discuss her LetGrow initiative – helping parents let go of their helicoptering, and letting kids grow into functioning adults.
I’m thrilled to welcome Lenore back to the show this Sunday to review the latest threats our kids’ freedom to be kids – from the War on Recess to reading logs.
Mark my words – the “War on Recess" will fare just like every other government “War on [fill-in-the-blank].”
As this article in Harvard Health Publishing confirms, kids need sunshine, risk, and socialization to become functioning adults.
Lastly, we’ll discuss Utah’s new law that protects parents from the charge of neglect when they let their kids play outside by themselves. Ahh, the sweet smell of Federalism!
Follow her latest project at LetGrow.com, and tune in live to the show of ideas – not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/751271566Impeachment is a Political – not a Legal – ProcessWed, 29 Jan 2020 00:02:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/impeachment-is-a-political-not-a-legal-process
00:52:24TheBobZadekShownoLast month, I spoke with Gene Healy about his persuasive cover story for Reason, arguing that we should all calm down. Perhaps the Ukraine phone call was not even the most impeachable thing Trump did in the month of July of last year, but it wouldn't hurt to send future presidents the message that they cannot act with impunity. Fair enough.
I have argued that on principle, a President may sometimes be duty-bound to investigate his political opponents - and even use the threat of withholding aid to a country that doesn't cooperate.
Does this apply to Trumps's infamous "perfect phone call"?
You can read or listen to my conversation with Gene and decide for yourself whether Trump committed an impeachable offense.
Now Peter Suderman at Reason Magazine further complicates things, writing that By Withholding Funds to Ukraine, Trump Broke the Law. The Government Accountability Office agrees that the Office of Management and Budget - an agency of the executive branch - was required to submit a reason to Congress for delaying the funds under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Trump and his lawyers argue he was acting within the law and his presidential authority to conduct U.S. foreign policy.
Listen to John Rothmann's political commentary every weeknight from 6–9 pm on KGO 810 AM.It's a tricky issue that opens up many important questions from the balance of powers to the wisdom of foreign policy that includes sending millions of dollars in "anti-corruption aid" to places like Ukraine.
Few people have been following the impeachment as closely as John Rothmann - an author, Bay Area radio host on KGO 810AM, and frequent lecturer on American politics and the presidency. John also has one of the finest private libraries in the country - 15,000 volumes, specializing in American political history and political biography. He says Trump must go, and that if the Senate acquits it's the end of America as we know it. He joins me this Sunday for the full hour.
But what would the Founders say? What are the important principles in play? And how would the analysis of the impeachment saga change if everyone took their ideological blinders off?
As the Senate prepares to vote "guilty" or "not guilty" in this historic case, I urge listeners to withhold their judgment until they've heard John's perspective.Last month, I spoke with Gene Healy about his per…Last month, I spoke with Gene Healy about his persuasive cover story for Reason, arguing that we should all calm down. Perhaps the Ukraine phone call was not even the most impeachable thing Trump did in the month of July of last year, but it wouldn't hurt to send future presidents the message that they cannot act with impunity. Fair enough.
I have argued that on principle, a President may sometimes be duty-bound to investigate his political opponents - and even use the threat of withholding aid to a country that doesn't cooperate.
Does this apply to Trumps's infamous "perfect phone call"?
You can read or listen to my conversation with Gene and decide for yourself whether Trump committed an impeachable offense.
Now Peter Suderman at Reason Magazine further complicates things, writing that By Withholding Funds to Ukraine, Trump Broke the Law. The Government Accountability Office agrees that the Office of Management and Budget - an agency of the executive branch - was required to submit a reason to Congress for delaying the funds under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Trump and his lawyers argue he was acting within the law and his presidential authority to conduct U.S. foreign policy.
Listen to John Rothmann's political commentary every weeknight from 6–9 pm on KGO 810 AM.It's a tricky issue that opens up many important questions from the balance of powers to the wisdom of foreign policy that includes sending millions of dollars in "anti-corruption aid" to places like Ukraine.
Few people have been following the impeachment as closely as John Rothmann - an author, Bay Area radio host on KGO 810AM, and frequent lecturer on American politics and the presidency. John also has one of the finest private libraries in the country - 15,000 volumes, specializing in American political history and political biography. He says Trump must go, and that if the Senate acquits it's the end of America as we know it. He joins me this Sunday for the full hour.
But what would the Founders say? What are the important principles in play? And how would the analysis of the impeachment saga change if everyone took their ideological blinders off?
As the Senate prepares to vote "guilty" or "not guilty" in this historic case, I urge listeners to withhold their judgment until they've heard John's perspective.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/746118319What's Really to Blame for California and Australia Wildfires?Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:35:04 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/whats-really-to-blame-for-california-and-australia-wildfires
00:52:11TheBobZadekShownoRadical environmentalists are increasingly using militant rhetoric to make the case for a proverbial “War on Climate Change.” What else is the Green New Deal if not Total War – the complete mobilization of the American economy – against the boogeyman of man-made emissions?
Myron Ebell (Director of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) notes that compared to the Green New Deal, even WWII and FDR’s New Deal were moderate (WWII only lasted four years – the Green New Deal would be permanent). In other words, the GND is social engineering in green garb – naming “unjust oppression” as one of its ancillary targets, and using soviet-style central planning to achieve its objectives.
Myron was a key figure in the Trump transition team who laid a foundation for the United States’ withdrawal from the genuinely oppressive Paris Climate Accord. He and his colleague at CEI, Patrick J. Michaels, recently wrote an article for the Washington Examiner demonstrating the latest area where the eco-warriors have overplayed their hand.
We are constantly lectured on a tenuous link between hot, dry weather and fires in places like California and Australia, yet misguided land management policies have created the very conditions which are now being blamed on climate change.
Skeptics are labelled “deniers” by those who ignore a much clearer correlation between the prohibition of prescribed burns and the rise of mega-fires such as the one now devastating Southern Australia.Radical environmentalists are increasingly using …Radical environmentalists are increasingly using militant rhetoric to make the case for a proverbial “War on Climate Change.” What else is the Green New Deal if not Total War – the complete mobilization of the American economy – against the boogeyman of man-made emissions?
Myron Ebell (Director of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) notes that compared to the Green New Deal, even WWII and FDR’s New Deal were moderate (WWII only lasted four years – the Green New Deal would be permanent). In other words, the GND is social engineering in green garb – naming “unjust oppression” as one of its ancillary targets, and using soviet-style central planning to achieve its objectives.
Myron was a key figure in the Trump transition team who laid a foundation for the United States’ withdrawal from the genuinely oppressive Paris Climate Accord. He and his colleague at CEI, Patrick J. Michaels, recently wrote an article for the Washington Examiner demonstrating the latest area where the eco-warriors have overplayed their hand.
We are constantly lectured on a tenuous link between hot, dry weather and fires in places like California and Australia, yet misguided land management policies have created the very conditions which are now being blamed on climate change.
Skeptics are labelled “deniers” by those who ignore a much clearer correlation between the prohibition of prescribed burns and the rise of mega-fires such as the one now devastating Southern Australia.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/743509111Secession: A How-to GuideTue, 14 Jan 2020 21:05:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/secession-a-how-to-guide
00:51:30TheBobZadekShowno28 states have proposed a constitutional convention, or “con-con,” to tie federal government’s hands with a balanced-budget amendment. If the necessary 38 states pass such resolutions, we could end up with a much more dramatic event – secession.
Buckley thinks we are on the verge of a break up. The United States is no longer one country, but at least two. He’s issued this warning in previous books and on my show before. A left-leaning elite (mostly clustered in coastal cities) now comprises a “New Class” that shares little in common with the rural population that elected Trump in 2016. And although “secession” is still a dirty word for most progressives, that hasn’t stopped a number of breakaway movements like Calexit and the Second Vermont Republic from gaining momentum. If Trump is elected to a second term, these will surely gain steam.
So let’s say California got fed up and wanted to opt out. Then what? Texas tried it in 1861, but was smacked down by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White after the end of the Civil War. The Court ruled that Texas’ vote to secede from the Union prior to the war didn’t count – in other words, the relationship between states in the Union was “dissoluble.”
Nothing has changed since then, meaning the only legal route to secession is through a “con-con.” While most historians look favorably on the preservation of the Union during the Civil War, Buckley argues that there’s more to be gained today from a legally-sought secession.
Today, America increasingly looks like a unitary state than the republic the Framers gave us thanks to the explosive growth of Federal government in 20th century. This “bigness” has taken a toll on our happiness, our wealth, our freedom, and the overall effectiveness of the government.
Listen to the show to hear the full argument and the “how-to” guide for a modern day secession movement. Those who read his new book will come away with a very message. Namely, that national self-determination can be exercised for progressive reasons, and that a looming break up may in fact be the best way to avert another Civil War.28 states have proposed a constitutional conventi…28 states have proposed a constitutional convention, or “con-con,” to tie federal government’s hands with a balanced-budget amendment. If the necessary 38 states pass such resolutions, we could end up with a much more dramatic event – secession.
Buckley thinks we are on the verge of a break up. The United States is no longer one country, but at least two. He’s issued this warning in previous books and on my show before. A left-leaning elite (mostly clustered in coastal cities) now comprises a “New Class” that shares little in common with the rural population that elected Trump in 2016. And although “secession” is still a dirty word for most progressives, that hasn’t stopped a number of breakaway movements like Calexit and the Second Vermont Republic from gaining momentum. If Trump is elected to a second term, these will surely gain steam.
So let’s say California got fed up and wanted to opt out. Then what? Texas tried it in 1861, but was smacked down by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White after the end of the Civil War. The Court ruled that Texas’ vote to secede from the Union prior to the war didn’t count – in other words, the relationship between states in the Union was “dissoluble.”
Nothing has changed since then, meaning the only legal route to secession is through a “con-con.” While most historians look favorably on the preservation of the Union during the Civil War, Buckley argues that there’s more to be gained today from a legally-sought secession.
Today, America increasingly looks like a unitary state than the republic the Framers gave us thanks to the explosive growth of Federal government in 20th century. This “bigness” has taken a toll on our happiness, our wealth, our freedom, and the overall effectiveness of the government.
Listen to the show to hear the full argument and the “how-to” guide for a modern day secession movement. Those who read his new book will come away with a very message. Namely, that national self-determination can be exercised for progressive reasons, and that a looming break up may in fact be the best way to avert another Civil War.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/739057111Rethinking Afghanistan with Jonathan BydlakMon, 06 Jan 2020 06:20:58 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/rethinking-afghanistan-with-jonathan-bydlak
00:51:29TheBobZadekShownoGeorge W. Bush started it. Obama continued it. And Trump promised to end it, but hasn’t.
Ready for some depressing numbers? Take a deep breath:
2.5 Trillion – the total cost of the War in Afghanistan (including indirect costs such as military benefits and medical expenses), as estimated by the Institute for Spending Reform
2,400 - The number of U.S. military casualties since the start of the war.
18 - the number of years we’ve been in Afghanistan (note that babies born after 9/11 are now eligible to serve in the “war on terror”)
21 - the number of veterans who commit suicide every day.
For those who were paying attention, the recently released “Afghanistan Papers” showed that all of this has been for virtually nothing. They also revealed the extent to which we’ve been lied to with each extension of our military presence in the region.
Read the report
Support the Institute for Spending Reform
The one silver lining is that it’s not too late to get out of Afghanistan – or at least to draw down troops to a bare minimum. Jonathan Bydlak, President of the Institute for Spending Reform, released a report that puts the costs of the War in Afghanistan in perspective, and proposes potential savings of up to $400 billion over the next four years.
President Trump take note: Americans and military alike support an end to the War in Afghanistan. Drawing down just 5,400 troops would generate massive savings for the American taxpayer. What are you waiting for?George W. Bush started it. Obama continued it. An…George W. Bush started it. Obama continued it. And Trump promised to end it, but hasn’t.
Ready for some depressing numbers? Take a deep breath:
2.5 Trillion – the total cost of the War in Afghanistan (including indirect costs such as military benefits and medical expenses), as estimated by the Institute for Spending Reform
2,400 - The number of U.S. military casualties since the start of the war.
18 - the number of years we’ve been in Afghanistan (note that babies born after 9/11 are now eligible to serve in the “war on terror”)
21 - the number of veterans who commit suicide every day.
For those who were paying attention, the recently released “Afghanistan Papers” showed that all of this has been for virtually nothing. They also revealed the extent to which we’ve been lied to with each extension of our military presence in the region.
Read the report
Support the Institute for Spending Reform
The one silver lining is that it’s not too late to get out of Afghanistan – or at least to draw down troops to a bare minimum. Jonathan Bydlak, President of the Institute for Spending Reform, released a report that puts the costs of the War in Afghanistan in perspective, and proposes potential savings of up to $400 billion over the next four years.
President Trump take note: Americans and military alike support an end to the War in Afghanistan. Drawing down just 5,400 troops would generate massive savings for the American taxpayer. What are you waiting for?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/737492143Close Enough to Socialism: Amity Shlaes on The Great SocietyThu, 02 Jan 2020 19:45:10 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/close-enough-to-socialism-amity-shlaes-on-the-great-society
00:00:01TheBobZadekShowno“Zadek’s Law” holds that whenever the government declares war on something, the problem gets worse.
Most liberals can see this clearly when it comes to the “War on Terror” or “War on Drugs,” but try including the “War on Poverty” in the same category and you will get blank stares, or worse.
Case in point: In a New York Times review of Great Society: A New History, @Binyamin Applebaum clearly struggles with Amity Schlaes’ central finding that LBJ’s War on Poverty hurt the very people it was intended to help. He calls the book “deeply flawed” for focusing on the failures of the Great Society while ignoring the successes.
What successes, you ask? Applebaum mentions the ever-popular Medicare and Medicaid – two enduring programs from the 1960s that are currently bankrupting the country.
If that’s what successes look like, I don’t want to know about the failures – or at least I wouldn’t if Schlaes hadn’t made it a sheer pleasure to read about them in such vivid historical detail.
Great Society is the latest in Schlaes’ saga of “new histories,” that began with The Forgotten Man (on the failures of the New Deal) and Coolidge, which rehabilitated the reputation of a “do-nothing” President.
LBJ, it turns out, was the anti-Coolidge – using his political skill to build a coalition of civil rights activists, technocratic know-it-alls, labor leaders, and legislators who ushered in the most sweeping social change since FDR’s New Deal.
While Johnson is the star of @AmitySchlaes’ new book, the story’s supporting cast includes Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (before he became a politician), labor leader Walter Reuther, and socialist activist Michael Harrington.
The 1960s, we are reminded, was a period of affluence, when optimists assumed that business could always be further squeezed to support a growing public sector. But as Schlaes shows (and the stagflation of the 70s confirms), the laws of economics and of unintended consequences always have the last word.
With progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren once again proposing sweeping overhauls of the U.S. economy, Schlaes’ book serves as an important warning.
⚠️ Planners take note: The free market cannot provide an inexhaustible supply of free stuff. Test its limits at your peril ⚠️.“Zadek’s Law” holds that whenever the government …“Zadek’s Law” holds that whenever the government declares war on something, the problem gets worse.
Most liberals can see this clearly when it comes to the “War on Terror” or “War on Drugs,” but try including the “War on Poverty” in the same category and you will get blank stares, or worse.
Case in point: In a New York Times review of Great Society: A New History, @Binyamin Applebaum clearly struggles with Amity Schlaes’ central finding that LBJ’s War on Poverty hurt the very people it was intended to help. He calls the book “deeply flawed” for focusing on the failures of the Great Society while ignoring the successes.
What successes, you ask? Applebaum mentions the ever-popular Medicare and Medicaid – two enduring programs from the 1960s that are currently bankrupting the country.
If that’s what successes look like, I don’t want to know about the failures – or at least I wouldn’t if Schlaes hadn’t made it a sheer pleasure to read about them in such vivid historical detail.
Great Society is the latest in Schlaes’ saga of “new histories,” that began with The Forgotten Man (on the failures of the New Deal) and Coolidge, which rehabilitated the reputation of a “do-nothing” President.
LBJ, it turns out, was the anti-Coolidge – using his political skill to build a coalition of civil rights activists, technocratic know-it-alls, labor leaders, and legislators who ushered in the most sweeping social change since FDR’s New Deal.
While Johnson is the star of @AmitySchlaes’ new book, the story’s supporting cast includes Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (before he became a politician), labor leader Walter Reuther, and socialist activist Michael Harrington.
The 1960s, we are reminded, was a period of affluence, when optimists assumed that business could always be further squeezed to support a growing public sector. But as Schlaes shows (and the stagflation of the 70s confirms), the laws of economics and of unintended consequences always have the last word.
With progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren once again proposing sweeping overhauls of the U.S. economy, Schlaes’ book serves as an important warning.
⚠️ Planners take note: The free market cannot provide an inexhaustible supply of free stuff. Test its limits at your peril ⚠️.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/733110265Which Impeachment Movie Are You Watching?Mon, 23 Dec 2019 21:35:24 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/which-impeachment-movie-are-you-watching
00:52:08TheBobZadekShownoScott Adams often says that when it comes to politics, we’re watching two different movies on the same screen.
Impeachment is the prime example. I present two different movies:
Judge Napolitano told Nick Gillespie that “at least three or four articles” of impeachment could have been drafted.
Richard Epstein, on the other hand, called the original impeachment charge “ludicrous.”
The charge of obstruction of congress is even more complex. Who can I turn to in a situation like this?
I usually turn to my favorite scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Hoover, but in this case, the layers of disagreement, nuance, and partisan spin have made it nearly impossible to figure out who’s right.
Thankfully, Gene Healy – vice president at the Cato Institute – has a new cover story for Reason Magazine, appropriately titled, “Don’t Freak Out About Impeachment.”
So, did Trump actually commit an impeachable offense?
Perhaps, Healy suggests, we should set aside the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky for a moment:
"The third-rate shakedown attempt of Ukrainegate probably isn't even the worst thing Trump did in the month of July…"
– Gene Healy,
As he pointed out in his 2018 report The Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power, impeachment is an underutilized process for reigning in the executive branch. Has Trump abused his power significantly in the past 3 years? A better question might be whether the “cult of the presidency” has grown so large and unwieldy that anyone who takes the job is implicitly agreeing to an “abuse of power”?
Maybe we should always demand that Congress impeach every president immediately after the election so that the legislature can get on with legislating. Of course, these days Congress prefers to even defer its job of lawmaking to the administrative agencies of the executive branch…
In a short video for the Cato Institute, Healy quotes founding father Elbridge Gerry, who said, “A good magistrate will not fear impeachments and a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”
With impeachment, Healy should have gotten his wish, but if it doesn’t hurt Trump politically, perhaps Congress should look less at partisan politics and more at the real abuses of power by the executive branch:
The military-industrial complex (including drone strikes on American citizens)
Usurpation of congress’s lawmaking authority
The corruption of science via technocratic administrative rule
Stealthy “midnight regulation”
Just to name a few that I cover in my new report on the administrative bureaucracy – a “shallow state” lurking in the swamps of DC that rivals the deep state in its unaccountable control over our lives.Scott Adams often says that when it comes to poli…Scott Adams often says that when it comes to politics, we’re watching two different movies on the same screen.
Impeachment is the prime example. I present two different movies:
Judge Napolitano told Nick Gillespie that “at least three or four articles” of impeachment could have been drafted.
Richard Epstein, on the other hand, called the original impeachment charge “ludicrous.”
The charge of obstruction of congress is even more complex. Who can I turn to in a situation like this?
I usually turn to my favorite scholars at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Hoover, but in this case, the layers of disagreement, nuance, and partisan spin have made it nearly impossible to figure out who’s right.
Thankfully, Gene Healy – vice president at the Cato Institute – has a new cover story for Reason Magazine, appropriately titled, “Don’t Freak Out About Impeachment.”
So, did Trump actually commit an impeachable offense?
Perhaps, Healy suggests, we should set aside the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky for a moment:
"The third-rate shakedown attempt of Ukrainegate probably isn't even the worst thing Trump did in the month of July…"
– Gene Healy,
As he pointed out in his 2018 report The Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power, impeachment is an underutilized process for reigning in the executive branch. Has Trump abused his power significantly in the past 3 years? A better question might be whether the “cult of the presidency” has grown so large and unwieldy that anyone who takes the job is implicitly agreeing to an “abuse of power”?
Maybe we should always demand that Congress impeach every president immediately after the election so that the legislature can get on with legislating. Of course, these days Congress prefers to even defer its job of lawmaking to the administrative agencies of the executive branch…
In a short video for the Cato Institute, Healy quotes founding father Elbridge Gerry, who said, “A good magistrate will not fear impeachments and a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”
With impeachment, Healy should have gotten his wish, but if it doesn’t hurt Trump politically, perhaps Congress should look less at partisan politics and more at the real abuses of power by the executive branch:
The military-industrial complex (including drone strikes on American citizens)
Usurpation of congress’s lawmaking authority
The corruption of science via technocratic administrative rule
Stealthy “midnight regulation”
Just to name a few that I cover in my new report on the administrative bureaucracy – a “shallow state” lurking in the swamps of DC that rivals the deep state in its unaccountable control over our lives.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/728954083Brian D. Kelly on the False Promise of Policing-for-ProfitTue, 17 Dec 2019 01:10:25 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/brian-d-kelly-on-the-false-promise-of-policing-for-profit
00:51:42TheBobZadekShownoIf you’re not outraged by civil asset forfeiture, you’re not paying attention. Many states have passed laws protecting their citizens from this “for-profit policing”, in which law enforcement seizes private property connected to alleged crimes before a person has even been convicted. Yet federal government has given local governments a loop-hole in the form of “equitable sharing programs” that remit hundreds of millions of dollars to agencies that cooperate with federal agencies on these often legally-questionable forfeitures.
Brian D. Kelly, PhD — associate professor of economics at Seattle University — recently authored a report titled, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue?”, which continues the outstanding work of the Institute for Justice in pushing back against governmental abuses of power. The report takes detailed data on civil asset forfeiture and looks at how effective it is at stopping crime. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions would have us believe that…
“[C]ivil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels.”
The data, however, suggests a different theory: civil asset forfeiture is not primarily a tool for fighting crime, but rather for raising revenue in cash-strapped localities.
I’ve covered this practice periodically since Sarah Stillman brought it to the attention of the readers of The New Yorker in 2013. The cases spotlighted by Stillman and the IJ have included the most egregious abuses of power — and rightly so. As the nation’s leading public interest law firm, the IJ has used its limited resources masterfully to set solid precedents for the future. Most recently, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, the IJ helped persuade the Supreme Court to vote unanimously in favor of a man whose expensive vehicle was seized in connection with a low-level drug offense. The value of the vehicle was well in excess of the maximum fine laid out by the State of Indiana, leading the court to overturn a lower ruling based on the “excessive fines” clause of the 8th amendment.
Kelly, on the other hand, relies less on the anomalies to make his case, instead demonstrating how ineffective the practice is on the whole in achieving its stated aims.If you’re not outraged by civil asset forfeiture,…If you’re not outraged by civil asset forfeiture, you’re not paying attention. Many states have passed laws protecting their citizens from this “for-profit policing”, in which law enforcement seizes private property connected to alleged crimes before a person has even been convicted. Yet federal government has given local governments a loop-hole in the form of “equitable sharing programs” that remit hundreds of millions of dollars to agencies that cooperate with federal agencies on these often legally-questionable forfeitures.
Brian D. Kelly, PhD — associate professor of economics at Seattle University — recently authored a report titled, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue?”, which continues the outstanding work of the Institute for Justice in pushing back against governmental abuses of power. The report takes detailed data on civil asset forfeiture and looks at how effective it is at stopping crime. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions would have us believe that…
“[C]ivil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels.”
The data, however, suggests a different theory: civil asset forfeiture is not primarily a tool for fighting crime, but rather for raising revenue in cash-strapped localities.
I’ve covered this practice periodically since Sarah Stillman brought it to the attention of the readers of The New Yorker in 2013. The cases spotlighted by Stillman and the IJ have included the most egregious abuses of power — and rightly so. As the nation’s leading public interest law firm, the IJ has used its limited resources masterfully to set solid precedents for the future. Most recently, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, the IJ helped persuade the Supreme Court to vote unanimously in favor of a man whose expensive vehicle was seized in connection with a low-level drug offense. The value of the vehicle was well in excess of the maximum fine laid out by the State of Indiana, leading the court to overturn a lower ruling based on the “excessive fines” clause of the 8th amendment.
Kelly, on the other hand, relies less on the anomalies to make his case, instead demonstrating how ineffective the practice is on the whole in achieving its stated aims.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/725332159Fergus Hodgson on the Fintech RevolutionMon, 09 Dec 2019 19:31:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/zadek-12-8-19-fullshow
00:52:05TheBobZadekShownoThe Fintech revolution is upon us.
In a recent article for the Epoch Times (How the Fintech Revolution Could Liberate Us, March 22, 2019), Fergus Hodgson argues that decentralized government-service-providers are primed to outcompete clunky 20th-century states in the 21st century and beyond. He says that Bitcoin and the sharing economy are only the beginning of the ascent of digital governance.
This is a bold claim, and it’s not likely to be welcomed by the guardians of the established order. However, if history is our guide, a major change in governance cannot be stopped once structural and technological changes make it a necessity.
Once known as “the Stateless Man”, Fergus draws on his own experience as a digital nomad to make the case that all jurisdictions must think ahead to the inevitable changes coming.
He quotes fellow futurist-libertarian Max Borders, “Cryptocurrency and income tax cannot coexist,” and draws out the dire implications for raising revenue in the increasingly burdened welfare states of the western world. This is not to say that governments will not be able to fund any activity, but that they will need to think carefully – both about how they tax their citizens and, more importantly, the value they provide in return.
Does the U.S. run the risk of becoming a Venezuela if we do not adapt to the changing tides of technology?
I’m delighted to welcome Fergus back to the show of ideas this Sunday (12/8, 8-9am PACIFIC) to discuss his recent articles on everything from Airbnb and Ethereum, to competitive currencies, and the democratization of finance through crowdfunding.
We explore the analogy between governments as service providers and citizens as customers, and see what’s happening countries that are failing their “customers.” Finally, we will look at what makes countries like Liechtenstein and Switzerland potential models for “The State in the Third Millennium” (to borrow the title of a book by Prince Hans-Adams II – reigning monarch of Liechtenstein).
When the revolution arrives, you won’t want to be left behind. Subscribe to hear my full conversation with Fergus, and follow him on Twitter: @FergHodgson.The Fintech revolution is upon us.
In a recent …The Fintech revolution is upon us.
In a recent article for the Epoch Times (How the Fintech Revolution Could Liberate Us, March 22, 2019), Fergus Hodgson argues that decentralized government-service-providers are primed to outcompete clunky 20th-century states in the 21st century and beyond. He says that Bitcoin and the sharing economy are only the beginning of the ascent of digital governance.
This is a bold claim, and it’s not likely to be welcomed by the guardians of the established order. However, if history is our guide, a major change in governance cannot be stopped once structural and technological changes make it a necessity.
Once known as “the Stateless Man”, Fergus draws on his own experience as a digital nomad to make the case that all jurisdictions must think ahead to the inevitable changes coming.
He quotes fellow futurist-libertarian Max Borders, “Cryptocurrency and income tax cannot coexist,” and draws out the dire implications for raising revenue in the increasingly burdened welfare states of the western world. This is not to say that governments will not be able to fund any activity, but that they will need to think carefully – both about how they tax their citizens and, more importantly, the value they provide in return.
Does the U.S. run the risk of becoming a Venezuela if we do not adapt to the changing tides of technology?
I’m delighted to welcome Fergus back to the show of ideas this Sunday (12/8, 8-9am PACIFIC) to discuss his recent articles on everything from Airbnb and Ethereum, to competitive currencies, and the democratization of finance through crowdfunding.
We explore the analogy between governments as service providers and citizens as customers, and see what’s happening countries that are failing their “customers.” Finally, we will look at what makes countries like Liechtenstein and Switzerland potential models for “The State in the Third Millennium” (to borrow the title of a book by Prince Hans-Adams II – reigning monarch of Liechtenstein).
When the revolution arrives, you won’t want to be left behind. Subscribe to hear my full conversation with Fergus, and follow him on Twitter: @FergHodgson.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/722030452C. Bradley Thompson on America's Revolutionary MindTue, 03 Dec 2019 08:28:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/c-bradley-thompson-on-americas-revolutionary-mind
00:51:55TheBobZadekShowno"We now live in a world wrought by the unidentified, unacknowledged union of proslavery and progressive thought."
These words come from the epilogue of C. Bradley Thompson's monumental new book, America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It.
To understand this important sentence, we must contrast this unholy union with the philosophical and moral idea both schools of thought sought to uproot. That opposing idea is best summed up by the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
What did the founders really mean when they penned the Declaration of Independence with words like "rights," "liberty," "equality," and "the pursuit of happiness"?
While we don't have direct access into the minds of the founders, Thompson's book takes us as close as we can get. Using extensive quotations from letters, speeches, and essays from the founding period, he makes clear that the historical changes wrought by the American Revolution began in the hearts and minds of a small number of truly revolutionary statesmen.
Thompson, a political science professor and the Executive Director of Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (CISC), is known for his studies of John Adams - the "colossus of liberty" who stood out even among his exceptional peers as the model revolutionary. What made these revolutionaries unique, Thompson writes, was their emphasis on moral philosophy in deducing sound principles for government.
As products and proponents of enlightenment era thought, the founders grounded their actions in the intellectual revolution brought about by figures like Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton. Armed with a new understanding of the physical and moral universe, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others were able to conceive of a new ideal of liberty. It was this spiritual victory that made the military victory against the British government possible (perhaps even inevitable).
Thompson goes on to ask, "What ever happened to the spirit of liberty in the United States?" Although the first century after the American founding continued the realization of this ideal - chiefly with the abolition of slavery - Thompson identifies a turning point in the early 20th century. The underlying philosophy of the defeated southern states did not disappear after the Civil War. Instead, it adopted fashionable historicist ideas coming out of Europe to cloak its opposition to the Declaration in so-called "progressive" thought.
The Revolutionary Wary was won more than 200 hundred years ago, but the battle continues to this day in new forms, as progressives seek to redefine liberty and equality, and downplay the unique genius of the framers of the Declaration of Independence.
Hear in the founders' own words why the Declaration and Constitution furnish texts, "to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people."
Lastly, learn what texts Thompson is using to educate the next generation of statesmen at Clemson - only on the show of ideas, not attitude."We now live in a world wrought by the unidentifi…"We now live in a world wrought by the unidentified, unacknowledged union of proslavery and progressive thought."
These words come from the epilogue of C. Bradley Thompson's monumental new book, America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It.
To understand this important sentence, we must contrast this unholy union with the philosophical and moral idea both schools of thought sought to uproot. That opposing idea is best summed up by the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
What did the founders really mean when they penned the Declaration of Independence with words like "rights," "liberty," "equality," and "the pursuit of happiness"?
While we don't have direct access into the minds of the founders, Thompson's book takes us as close as we can get. Using extensive quotations from letters, speeches, and essays from the founding period, he makes clear that the historical changes wrought by the American Revolution began in the hearts and minds of a small number of truly revolutionary statesmen.
Thompson, a political science professor and the Executive Director of Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (CISC), is known for his studies of John Adams - the "colossus of liberty" who stood out even among his exceptional peers as the model revolutionary. What made these revolutionaries unique, Thompson writes, was their emphasis on moral philosophy in deducing sound principles for government.
As products and proponents of enlightenment era thought, the founders grounded their actions in the intellectual revolution brought about by figures like Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton. Armed with a new understanding of the physical and moral universe, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others were able to conceive of a new ideal of liberty. It was this spiritual victory that made the military victory against the British government possible (perhaps even inevitable).
Thompson goes on to ask, "What ever happened to the spirit of liberty in the United States?" Although the first century after the American founding continued the realization of this ideal - chiefly with the abolition of slavery - Thompson identifies a turning point in the early 20th century. The underlying philosophy of the defeated southern states did not disappear after the Civil War. Instead, it adopted fashionable historicist ideas coming out of Europe to cloak its opposition to the Declaration in so-called "progressive" thought.
The Revolutionary Wary was won more than 200 hundred years ago, but the battle continues to this day in new forms, as progressives seek to redefine liberty and equality, and downplay the unique genius of the framers of the Declaration of Independence.
Hear in the founders' own words why the Declaration and Constitution furnish texts, "to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people."
Lastly, learn what texts Thompson is using to educate the next generation of statesmen at Clemson - only on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/718378321Daniel Markovitz on the (De)Merits of MeritocracyMon, 25 Nov 2019 19:34:28 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/daniel-markovitz-on-the-demerits-of-meritocracy
00:52:00TheBobZadekShownoIt’s not every day that you hear about the “exploitation of the elite.” Usually, it’s the rich and powerful who are allegedly exploiting the poor and disenfranchised.
In the past, the working class earned that designation by working much longer hours than the bankers, lawyers, and landlords. But today, the situation has reversed and the wealthiest Americans work longer hours under insane pressures to achieve.
Daniel Markovitz, Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale Law School, is a brave man to advance elite exploitation as an argument against meritocracy . This is just one of the contrarian claims that underlie The Meritocracy Trap, Markovitz’s challenge to “America’s foundational myth.”
The Founders directed their screeds at a royal aristocracy, which the American experiment intended to replace with a republic governed by the most virtuous and talented citizens (regardless of their bloodline).
However, Markovitz argues, dynastic succession is still the reality in America. Children of elite parents are under intense competitive pressures to excel— first educationally and later in their workplace achievements. This hyper-meritocracy is increasingly felt as a burden both to the parents and children, and many are starting to question whether the rat race is worth it.
When I first came across Markovitz’ argument on Vox, I was taken aback by the mere suggestion that there is a fundamental problem with meritocracy — as if being rewarded for hard work is a bad thing. But The Meritocracy Trap makes a more a subtle point about how social polarization ends up harming both the elites and working class.
In studying his arguments, I’ve come to see that the forces driving elites to accumulate more and more expertise and human capital are the same forces expanding the power of bureaucrats in the administrative state.It’s not every day that you hear about the “explo…It’s not every day that you hear about the “exploitation of the elite.” Usually, it’s the rich and powerful who are allegedly exploiting the poor and disenfranchised.
In the past, the working class earned that designation by working much longer hours than the bankers, lawyers, and landlords. But today, the situation has reversed and the wealthiest Americans work longer hours under insane pressures to achieve.
Daniel Markovitz, Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at Yale Law School, is a brave man to advance elite exploitation as an argument against meritocracy . This is just one of the contrarian claims that underlie The Meritocracy Trap, Markovitz’s challenge to “America’s foundational myth.”
The Founders directed their screeds at a royal aristocracy, which the American experiment intended to replace with a republic governed by the most virtuous and talented citizens (regardless of their bloodline).
However, Markovitz argues, dynastic succession is still the reality in America. Children of elite parents are under intense competitive pressures to excel— first educationally and later in their workplace achievements. This hyper-meritocracy is increasingly felt as a burden both to the parents and children, and many are starting to question whether the rat race is worth it.
When I first came across Markovitz’ argument on Vox, I was taken aback by the mere suggestion that there is a fundamental problem with meritocracy — as if being rewarded for hard work is a bad thing. But The Meritocracy Trap makes a more a subtle point about how social polarization ends up harming both the elites and working class.
In studying his arguments, I’ve come to see that the forces driving elites to accumulate more and more expertise and human capital are the same forces expanding the power of bureaucrats in the administrative state.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/716028352The Four Federal Statutes No One Mentions in the Impeachment DebateWed, 20 Nov 2019 20:44:02 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-four-federal-statutes-no-one-mentions-in-the-impeachment-debate
00:11:45TheBobZadekShownoHow can you impeach your President for doing what he's required to do?How can you impeach your President for doing what…How can you impeach your President for doing what he's required to do?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/711214159Jonathan Roswell on Market EgalitarianismMon, 11 Nov 2019 18:45:35 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jonathan-roswell-on-market-egalitarianism
00:51:56TheBobZadekShownoHave Americans become jaded by unjust inequality?
Two data points are informative.
Few expect the celebrities caught in the college admissions scandal to do jail time for their criminal bribes.
Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein appear to be unlikely to be held accountable any time soon.
Perhaps even more seriously, however, Jonathan Rothwell believes that inequality and the political forces underlying it are actually undermining the public’s faith in our government.
He says that the wave of populist nationalism that swept Trump into office is driven by a deeper discontentment and insecurity resulting from widening income inequality. [Paradoxically, Rothwell argues that many of the same nativist attitudes are also cementing the very policies that are exacerbating unjust inequality.]
Buy the book
Of course, it’s vitally important in this debate to distinguish between inequality that is the result of people’s subjective preferences for work vs. leisure, that which is based on supply and demand, and that which is based on pure political privilege.
In his new book A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society, Rothwell ushers an impressive body of data to show just how much of the current inequality is caused not by free markets, but by the political powers that be. In doing so, he upsets both the right and the left’s narratives around inequality.
We do not live in a perfectly free market based on mutually-beneficial exchange. From education to housing, the current political system further rewards those who have already made it with additional spoils.
As a “market egalitarian,” Rothwell claims that we do not need government to act to redistribute unjustly acquired wealth so much as we need government to set the rules of the game such that incomes more closely align with relatively evenly-distributed abilities in the population. There’s a lot to unpack there.
I spend the full hour this Sunday dissecting the poll numbers in Jonathan’s book to determine whether his thesis is correct.
A Republic of Equals envisions what would happen naturally to equality of outcome if we stopped giving those with political power special access to markets and public services.
We discuss what count as “basic liberties,” and what government must do to ensure equal access to markets and the right to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Provide universal education? Job training for unemployed workers? Or simply get out of the way?
Don’t miss this show. Listen Now!Have Americans become jaded by unjust inequality?…Have Americans become jaded by unjust inequality?
Two data points are informative.
Few expect the celebrities caught in the college admissions scandal to do jail time for their criminal bribes.
Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein appear to be unlikely to be held accountable any time soon.
Perhaps even more seriously, however, Jonathan Rothwell believes that inequality and the political forces underlying it are actually undermining the public’s faith in our government.
He says that the wave of populist nationalism that swept Trump into office is driven by a deeper discontentment and insecurity resulting from widening income inequality. [Paradoxically, Rothwell argues that many of the same nativist attitudes are also cementing the very policies that are exacerbating unjust inequality.]
Buy the book
Of course, it’s vitally important in this debate to distinguish between inequality that is the result of people’s subjective preferences for work vs. leisure, that which is based on supply and demand, and that which is based on pure political privilege.
In his new book A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society, Rothwell ushers an impressive body of data to show just how much of the current inequality is caused not by free markets, but by the political powers that be. In doing so, he upsets both the right and the left’s narratives around inequality.
We do not live in a perfectly free market based on mutually-beneficial exchange. From education to housing, the current political system further rewards those who have already made it with additional spoils.
As a “market egalitarian,” Rothwell claims that we do not need government to act to redistribute unjustly acquired wealth so much as we need government to set the rules of the game such that incomes more closely align with relatively evenly-distributed abilities in the population. There’s a lot to unpack there.
I spend the full hour this Sunday dissecting the poll numbers in Jonathan’s book to determine whether his thesis is correct.
A Republic of Equals envisions what would happen naturally to equality of outcome if we stopped giving those with political power special access to markets and public services.
We discuss what count as “basic liberties,” and what government must do to ensure equal access to markets and the right to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Provide universal education? Job training for unemployed workers? Or simply get out of the way?
Don’t miss this show. Listen Now!tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/707617624Mike Munger is Taking Public Choice SeriouslyMon, 04 Nov 2019 08:31:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/mike-munger-is-taking-public-choice-seriously
00:51:57TheBobZadekShownoMike Munger is taking Public Choice seriously.
How seriously?
So seriously that his new book calls many of the sacred cows of the free market crowd into question – asking whether real capitalism is even a stable equilibrium, or if it always morphs into its ugly twin: cronyism.
While public choice is best known for its analysis of the rational, self-interested behavior of so-called “public servants”, Munger steps back and asks when the rational interest of CEOs and corporate boards might also betray free market principles. In other words, does competitive rent-seeking becomes the norm in a world where executives are expected to get the sweetest deal possible from the government?
Is Capitalism Sustainable? is a collection of essays published by the American Institute for Economic Research that will provoke central planners and free-marketeers alike to consider how real-world frictions, ethical norms, and those pesky transaction costs muddy the waters of pure economic theory.
Find out what violations of norms provoked not one, but two old German women, to publicly shame Munger while he was living abroad… and what this has to be with the study of economics and political science.Mike Munger is taking Public Choice seriously.
H…Mike Munger is taking Public Choice seriously.
How seriously?
So seriously that his new book calls many of the sacred cows of the free market crowd into question – asking whether real capitalism is even a stable equilibrium, or if it always morphs into its ugly twin: cronyism.
While public choice is best known for its analysis of the rational, self-interested behavior of so-called “public servants”, Munger steps back and asks when the rational interest of CEOs and corporate boards might also betray free market principles. In other words, does competitive rent-seeking becomes the norm in a world where executives are expected to get the sweetest deal possible from the government?
Is Capitalism Sustainable? is a collection of essays published by the American Institute for Economic Research that will provoke central planners and free-marketeers alike to consider how real-world frictions, ethical norms, and those pesky transaction costs muddy the waters of pure economic theory.
Find out what violations of norms provoked not one, but two old German women, to publicly shame Munger while he was living abroad… and what this has to be with the study of economics and political science.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/703833700Rachel Barkow on Fixing the Fundamentals of Criminal JusticeTue, 29 Oct 2019 04:55:12 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/rachel-barkow-on-fixing-the-fundamentals-of-criminal-justice
00:52:29TheBobZadekShowno“Tough-on-crime” is possibly the most abused political slogan – almost as bad as proposing a balanced budget by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
Unlike empty promises to cut spending though, politicians actually keep their promises to go hard on the “bad guys.”
From a public choice perspective, acting tough on crime is the perfect ploy for a politician. Here’s why:
Prison sentences are expensive long term, but cost little up front.
The politicians gets a quick boost in the polls, and society pays the majority of the cost later, once the perpetrators are released.
In short: A good mob needs a good scapegoat.
Tough on crime was the strategy that George HW Bush used to hammer Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.
It’s also why Bill Clinton took time off the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally disabled man in 1992.
Lastly, it’s why Trump frequently mentions atrocities committed by illegal immigrants in his speeches to packed arenas.
Rachel Elise Barkow is a professor of regulatory law and policy at NYU and author of Prisoners of Politics [Buy it on Amazon] – a comprehensive look at how our criminal justice system has turned the United States into the leader in incarceration. Barkow has come to the conclusion that mass incarceration is a product of too much democracy and not enough data.
Barkow’s Q&A with the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily (formerly of the Institute for Justice) is a fascinating survey of the abuses of power by federal prosecutors, who have turned plea bargains and mandatory minimums into coercive tools to deny the accused their right to a jury trial.
The Framers are rolling their graves.
While there are some silver linings, such as a bi-partisan reform that passed the Senate last year, the bitter truth is that the overall trend is toward more prisoners, more plea bargains, and more politics as usual.
New statutes consistently make it easier for law enforcement to do their job. Prosecutors are captured by special interests in law enforcement, and judges and politicians are afraid to appear lenient in the event that they let the next Willie Horton off the hook.
While no one wants to bring back Dukakis’ “weekend furloughs” for murder convicts, there are a range of common-sense reforms working their way through state and federal legislatures. These include clemency for non-violent, non-serious offenders, as well more data-driven proposals to reduce recividism rates.
A Necessary Function of the Administrative State?
Barkow’s solution to the mass incarceration crisis involves a greater role for the administrative state — the bureaucratic arm of the executive branch, which I’ve covered extensively on my show.
While most of my coverage has been negative, Barkow sheds some light on the question of when rule-by-expert might be preferable to pure democracy or congressional lawmaking. Congress could write the laws, but members of both parties seem to prefer scoring cheap political points through scapegoating over fixing a broken system.
Would an administrative agencies tasked with reforming the criminal justice system be subject to the same lobbying and electoral pressures as Congress?
Can data-driven experts fix the criminal justice system – or do we perhaps need a mass lesson in jury nullification?
Is more democratic participation or less needed to keep our prisons from filling up due for non-violent offenses?“Tough-on-crime” is possibly the most abused poli…“Tough-on-crime” is possibly the most abused political slogan – almost as bad as proposing a balanced budget by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
Unlike empty promises to cut spending though, politicians actually keep their promises to go hard on the “bad guys.”
From a public choice perspective, acting tough on crime is the perfect ploy for a politician. Here’s why:
Prison sentences are expensive long term, but cost little up front.
The politicians gets a quick boost in the polls, and society pays the majority of the cost later, once the perpetrators are released.
In short: A good mob needs a good scapegoat.
Tough on crime was the strategy that George HW Bush used to hammer Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.
It’s also why Bill Clinton took time off the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally disabled man in 1992.
Lastly, it’s why Trump frequently mentions atrocities committed by illegal immigrants in his speeches to packed arenas.
Rachel Elise Barkow is a professor of regulatory law and policy at NYU and author of Prisoners of Politics [Buy it on Amazon] – a comprehensive look at how our criminal justice system has turned the United States into the leader in incarceration. Barkow has come to the conclusion that mass incarceration is a product of too much democracy and not enough data.
Barkow’s Q&A with the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily (formerly of the Institute for Justice) is a fascinating survey of the abuses of power by federal prosecutors, who have turned plea bargains and mandatory minimums into coercive tools to deny the accused their right to a jury trial.
The Framers are rolling their graves.
While there are some silver linings, such as a bi-partisan reform that passed the Senate last year, the bitter truth is that the overall trend is toward more prisoners, more plea bargains, and more politics as usual.
New statutes consistently make it easier for law enforcement to do their job. Prosecutors are captured by special interests in law enforcement, and judges and politicians are afraid to appear lenient in the event that they let the next Willie Horton off the hook.
While no one wants to bring back Dukakis’ “weekend furloughs” for murder convicts, there are a range of common-sense reforms working their way through state and federal legislatures. These include clemency for non-violent, non-serious offenders, as well more data-driven proposals to reduce recividism rates.
A Necessary Function of the Administrative State?
Barkow’s solution to the mass incarceration crisis involves a greater role for the administrative state — the bureaucratic arm of the executive branch, which I’ve covered extensively on my show.
While most of my coverage has been negative, Barkow sheds some light on the question of when rule-by-expert might be preferable to pure democracy or congressional lawmaking. Congress could write the laws, but members of both parties seem to prefer scoring cheap political points through scapegoating over fixing a broken system.
Would an administrative agencies tasked with reforming the criminal justice system be subject to the same lobbying and electoral pressures as Congress?
Can data-driven experts fix the criminal justice system – or do we perhaps need a mass lesson in jury nullification?
Is more democratic participation or less needed to keep our prisons from filling up due for non-violent offenses?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/695345632The Physiology of FreedomMon, 14 Oct 2019 03:39:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-physiology-of-freedom
00:52:05TheBobZadekShownoMichael Ostrolenk is host of the #OShow - a show exploring individual and social transformation.
In this show, producer Charlie Deist asks Michael about his expertise in transpartisan politics, cybersecurity, the dangers of foreign meddling in elections, and the physiological component to disagreement.Michael Ostrolenk is host of the #OShow - a show…Michael Ostrolenk is host of the #OShow - a show exploring individual and social transformation.
In this show, producer Charlie Deist asks Michael about his expertise in transpartisan politics, cybersecurity, the dangers of foreign meddling in elections, and the physiological component to disagreement.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/688785970Randall G. Holcombe on Liberty in PerilMon, 30 Sep 2019 05:58:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/randall-g-holcombe-on-liberty-in-peril
00:52:10TheBobZadekShownoBeing against democracy does not make you an elitist.
Far from it.
It might mean that, like Aristotle, you are against demagoguery, or like Randall Holcombe, you are for liberty – even when the majority opposes it.
Today, most Americans think of “democracy” as the principle underlying government. In 1776, most Americans would have said “liberty.” Democracy was an after-thought, meant to keep elite powers at bay.
Hans Herman-Hoppe has called democracy "the God that failed." In his recently revised book Liberty in Peril, Independent Institute research fellow Randall Holcombe elaborates on the history of how the false idol of democracy has undermined freedom in America – and it's not pretty.
We must be reminded that democracy is not always in harmony with liberty.
Our Founders worried that the Constitution might lead to too much democracy, and judging by the results, it's hard to argue they were wrong.
Holcombe provides the long view in his new book (buy it here) the subject of my upcoming show this Sunday.
The transformation of the U.S. from a republic, founded on libertarian principles, to a system of majority rule threatening our liberties didn’t happen overnight.
Listen now to hear the full history from a leading scholar of liberty.Being against democracy does not make you an elit…Being against democracy does not make you an elitist.
Far from it.
It might mean that, like Aristotle, you are against demagoguery, or like Randall Holcombe, you are for liberty – even when the majority opposes it.
Today, most Americans think of “democracy” as the principle underlying government. In 1776, most Americans would have said “liberty.” Democracy was an after-thought, meant to keep elite powers at bay.
Hans Herman-Hoppe has called democracy "the God that failed." In his recently revised book Liberty in Peril, Independent Institute research fellow Randall Holcombe elaborates on the history of how the false idol of democracy has undermined freedom in America – and it's not pretty.
We must be reminded that democracy is not always in harmony with liberty.
Our Founders worried that the Constitution might lead to too much democracy, and judging by the results, it's hard to argue they were wrong.
Holcombe provides the long view in his new book (buy it here) the subject of my upcoming show this Sunday.
The transformation of the U.S. from a republic, founded on libertarian principles, to a system of majority rule threatening our liberties didn’t happen overnight.
Listen now to hear the full history from a leading scholar of liberty.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/685604044Popping the Filter BubbleMon, 23 Sep 2019 16:10:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/popping-the-filter-bubble
00:52:56TheBobZadekShownoJoan Blades was an entrepreneur co-founder of MoveOn.org.
John Gable (also a tech entrepreneur) was a Republican operative — helping elect politicians like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell.
Joan and John are the unlikely duo behind a viral TED talk on the problem of political polarization, and the founders of a technology-based solution.
AllSides.com is your one-stop shop for headlines from across the political spectrum. Like a bulldozer for bias, All Sides conveniently aggregates stories from around the web along with a rating — left, right, center, or left- or right-leaning.
Screenshot of AllSides.com. Try switching your morning news source from Drudge Report or Huffington Post to AllSides.com and see what it does to your blood pressure.
I’ll admit — it’s fun to get mad at the idiocy of the “other side” and the internet offers an endless supply of confirmation bias for whatever opinions you hold.
But the danger of such extreme political polarization is that our government may not function the way it’s supposed to.
In my book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again, I theorized that anger in politics is a result of too much power being given to Federal government.
John and Joan, however, see something else — namely, that the advent of digital communities allows us to select our news sources to fit our narrow beliefs (rather than forming our beliefs from the same set of facts).
John and Joan joined me to discuss the nature of these “filter bubbles” — our self-made echo chambers — and how their platform works to “pop” these bubbles of bias.
Be sure to catch the full conversation.Joan Blades was an entrepreneur co-founder of Mov…Joan Blades was an entrepreneur co-founder of MoveOn.org.
John Gable (also a tech entrepreneur) was a Republican operative — helping elect politicians like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell.
Joan and John are the unlikely duo behind a viral TED talk on the problem of political polarization, and the founders of a technology-based solution.
AllSides.com is your one-stop shop for headlines from across the political spectrum. Like a bulldozer for bias, All Sides conveniently aggregates stories from around the web along with a rating — left, right, center, or left- or right-leaning.
Screenshot of AllSides.com. Try switching your morning news source from Drudge Report or Huffington Post to AllSides.com and see what it does to your blood pressure.
I’ll admit — it’s fun to get mad at the idiocy of the “other side” and the internet offers an endless supply of confirmation bias for whatever opinions you hold.
But the danger of such extreme political polarization is that our government may not function the way it’s supposed to.
In my book Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again, I theorized that anger in politics is a result of too much power being given to Federal government.
John and Joan, however, see something else — namely, that the advent of digital communities allows us to select our news sources to fit our narrow beliefs (rather than forming our beliefs from the same set of facts).
John and Joan joined me to discuss the nature of these “filter bubbles” — our self-made echo chambers — and how their platform works to “pop” these bubbles of bias.
Be sure to catch the full conversation.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/681930512Libertarian Minute: Don Boudreaux Debunks ProtectionismMon, 16 Sep 2019 17:07:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-minute-don-boudreaux-debunks-protectionism
00:03:51TheBobZadekShowno"What protectionism does is protect jobs in relatively inefficient industries by destroying jobs in relatively efficient industries.
Over time, as anyone who thinks about it can tell over time, what that does is lower the standard of living insofar as we have protections, because when you are protecting jobs in inefficient industries and protecting less productive jobs, it means you are protecting workers in less productive occupations, and that means those wages are going to be lower over time.""What protectionism does is protect jobs in relat…"What protectionism does is protect jobs in relatively inefficient industries by destroying jobs in relatively efficient industries.
Over time, as anyone who thinks about it can tell over time, what that does is lower the standard of living insofar as we have protections, because when you are protecting jobs in inefficient industries and protecting less productive jobs, it means you are protecting workers in less productive occupations, and that means those wages are going to be lower over time."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/681884270Roger L. Simon on Screenwriting and *The GOAT*Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:21:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/roger-l-simon-on-screenwriting-and-the-goat
00:26:14TheBobZadekShownoI want to tell you about the amazing potential of a powerful combination of ALL NATURAL herbs that can restore your vitality. This ancient Ayurvedic formula actually REVERSES aging at the cellular level and can make you feel 15-25-35 or even 55 years younger. It’s harvested from the high ridges of the Himalayas where only the bravest sherpas dare to tread.
If it Sound too good to be true, well maybe it is.
This miracle mixture can be YOURS for just one easy payment of... your soul.
No, this is not a Sunday morning radio infomercial – it's the premise of The GOAT, a new book from Academy Award-winning screenwriter Roger Simon.
Some call him the godfather of conservative media. He was nominated for an Oscar in 1990 for his screenplay of the movie “Enemies, A Love Story.”
He's also a deep political thinker, but his true art is writing stories.
He found success in Hollywood before blacklisting himself by coming out as a conservative.
He wrote the popular Moses Wine detective series, as well as the Big Fix – both the book and the screenplay) and he’s worked with Woody Allen, Bette Midler, and Richard Pryor.
Roger is also a co-founder and CEO emeritus of PJ Media - the powerhouse alternative media company that has launched conservative comedian Steven Crowder and others to fame.
He joined the show to discuss his work, his writing ethos, and why the storytelling medium is inherently conservative.I want to tell you about the amazing potential of…I want to tell you about the amazing potential of a powerful combination of ALL NATURAL herbs that can restore your vitality. This ancient Ayurvedic formula actually REVERSES aging at the cellular level and can make you feel 15-25-35 or even 55 years younger. It’s harvested from the high ridges of the Himalayas where only the bravest sherpas dare to tread.
If it Sound too good to be true, well maybe it is.
This miracle mixture can be YOURS for just one easy payment of... your soul.
No, this is not a Sunday morning radio infomercial – it's the premise of The GOAT, a new book from Academy Award-winning screenwriter Roger Simon.
Some call him the godfather of conservative media. He was nominated for an Oscar in 1990 for his screenplay of the movie “Enemies, A Love Story.”
He's also a deep political thinker, but his true art is writing stories.
He found success in Hollywood before blacklisting himself by coming out as a conservative.
He wrote the popular Moses Wine detective series, as well as the Big Fix – both the book and the screenplay) and he’s worked with Woody Allen, Bette Midler, and Richard Pryor.
Roger is also a co-founder and CEO emeritus of PJ Media - the powerhouse alternative media company that has launched conservative comedian Steven Crowder and others to fame.
He joined the show to discuss his work, his writing ethos, and why the storytelling medium is inherently conservative.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/675402017Ivan Eland on the Rogue PresidencyTue, 03 Sep 2019 06:14:05 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/zadek-09-01-19-fullshow
00:52:21TheBobZadekShownoThe last time Congress declared war was on December 8, 1941. In the years since then we have gone from a relatively limited executive branch — as spelled out in James Madison’s system of checks and balances — straight through the imperial presidency of undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam, to a rogue Presidency in which all bets are off.
Historian, economist, and foreign policy expert Ivan Eland has written a new book linking the cancerous growth of the military and executive branch to Congress’s on-going abdication of responsibility.
War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure is Eland’s latest with the Independent Institute. Senator Rand Paul calls it a must-read for “for anyone seeking a safer, freer, and more peaceful world.”
I’ve covered the growth of the administrative state dozens of times on my show, but Eland has a fresh take on how the erosion of checks and balances has taken place — not all at once, but in a ratcheting of executive power during wartime.
He shows how most major economic interventions have their origin in war: whether its taxes (i.e., income tax, progressive taxation, double taxation, tax withholding, tax expenditures, the estate tax, gas taxes, etc.) or social programs (i.e., Social Security, expansion of Medicaid, public housing and rent control, grants-in-aid to state).
Even government regulation of marriage, as opposed to the common law tradition, arose out of a Civil War interest in monitoring the moral activity of widows receiving pensions from the government.
Eland walks readers through this surprising history — including Abraham Lincoln’s “inept autocratic” wartime presidency — and the attempts by Congress to push back against growing executive authority.
Eventually, he brings us to the present, in which Congress has pretty much stopped trying to check the President’s authority.
Eland makes an especially convincing case for conservatives to oppose the “rogue presidency.” He writes:
CONSERVATIVES SHOULD BE leerier of jumping into wars, not only because wars kill and destroy and because the American superpower might become overextended, especially in a time of high national debt and fiscal crisis, but also because war makes the government — that is, the executive branch — expand rapidly at home, even in areas unrelated to national security.
President Trump and the current Republican Congress are at an inflection point. After so many decades endless wars, we may be finally reaching agreements in Afghanistan and elsewhere to bring troops home. Yet Trump continues to face stiff pressures from advisors like John Bolton, who not only warn against troop drawdowns in the Middle East, but seem to be banging the drum for war in other distant regions like Iran.
Listen now to learn how Congress can resume its constitutional authority to declare war, and constrain the rogue elements of the executive branch in their thirst for power.The last time Congress declared war was on Decemb…The last time Congress declared war was on December 8, 1941. In the years since then we have gone from a relatively limited executive branch — as spelled out in James Madison’s system of checks and balances — straight through the imperial presidency of undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam, to a rogue Presidency in which all bets are off.
Historian, economist, and foreign policy expert Ivan Eland has written a new book linking the cancerous growth of the military and executive branch to Congress’s on-going abdication of responsibility.
War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure is Eland’s latest with the Independent Institute. Senator Rand Paul calls it a must-read for “for anyone seeking a safer, freer, and more peaceful world.”
I’ve covered the growth of the administrative state dozens of times on my show, but Eland has a fresh take on how the erosion of checks and balances has taken place — not all at once, but in a ratcheting of executive power during wartime.
He shows how most major economic interventions have their origin in war: whether its taxes (i.e., income tax, progressive taxation, double taxation, tax withholding, tax expenditures, the estate tax, gas taxes, etc.) or social programs (i.e., Social Security, expansion of Medicaid, public housing and rent control, grants-in-aid to state).
Even government regulation of marriage, as opposed to the common law tradition, arose out of a Civil War interest in monitoring the moral activity of widows receiving pensions from the government.
Eland walks readers through this surprising history — including Abraham Lincoln’s “inept autocratic” wartime presidency — and the attempts by Congress to push back against growing executive authority.
Eventually, he brings us to the present, in which Congress has pretty much stopped trying to check the President’s authority.
Eland makes an especially convincing case for conservatives to oppose the “rogue presidency.” He writes:
CONSERVATIVES SHOULD BE leerier of jumping into wars, not only because wars kill and destroy and because the American superpower might become overextended, especially in a time of high national debt and fiscal crisis, but also because war makes the government — that is, the executive branch — expand rapidly at home, even in areas unrelated to national security.
President Trump and the current Republican Congress are at an inflection point. After so many decades endless wars, we may be finally reaching agreements in Afghanistan and elsewhere to bring troops home. Yet Trump continues to face stiff pressures from advisors like John Bolton, who not only warn against troop drawdowns in the Middle East, but seem to be banging the drum for war in other distant regions like Iran.
Listen now to learn how Congress can resume its constitutional authority to declare war, and constrain the rogue elements of the executive branch in their thirst for power.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/671009891Antitrust 101 with Ryan YoungMon, 26 Aug 2019 01:57:34 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/antitrust-101-with-ryan-young
00:52:20TheBobZadekShownoAt this point it’s fairly clear that “Big Tech” companies like Google, Apple and Twitter are in the tank for the Democrats. However, you can easily stay informed by diversifying your news sources and listening to shows like this one.
There’s no great threat to competition in the market for news and information – to the contrary, the internet has given us more options than we could have dreamed of.
Trump meanwhile is threatening to regulate his political enemies in tech like public utilities. Whether he realizes it or not, this puts him in league with some of the leading figures of the Progressive Era – like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Brandeis set the precedent that led to a “Big-is-Bad” mentality of antitrust enforcement, which persisted well into the 20th century, and is now rearing its ugly head once again.
Ryan Young, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is at the frontlines of the antitrust issue. He’s noted the worrisome confluence (dare I say collusion?) between Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Republicans like Trump when it comes to the issue of regulating free markets in the name of “competition.”
He observes that this Orwellian notion tends to find support during periods of rising populism – such as today – despite the FTC’s abysmal track record of policing anti-competitive practices for the so-called “public interest.” Instead, the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division and the FTC have colluded with one another to maximize their own budgets while stifling innovation and creating an entire cottage industry in Washington D.C. for Microsoft lobbyists.
Young has a new, must-read series of blog posts explaining the flaws of antitrust regulation, as well as a paper titled “The Case Against Antitrust” [view Full Document as PDF]. We’ll break the topic down to basics this Sunday on the show of ideas, including the paradox of antitrust – namely that no monopoly can survive for long without favorable treatment from the government (often in the form of previous antitrust provisions).At this point it’s fairly clear that “Big Tech” c…At this point it’s fairly clear that “Big Tech” companies like Google, Apple and Twitter are in the tank for the Democrats. However, you can easily stay informed by diversifying your news sources and listening to shows like this one.
There’s no great threat to competition in the market for news and information – to the contrary, the internet has given us more options than we could have dreamed of.
Trump meanwhile is threatening to regulate his political enemies in tech like public utilities. Whether he realizes it or not, this puts him in league with some of the leading figures of the Progressive Era – like Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Brandeis set the precedent that led to a “Big-is-Bad” mentality of antitrust enforcement, which persisted well into the 20th century, and is now rearing its ugly head once again.
Ryan Young, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is at the frontlines of the antitrust issue. He’s noted the worrisome confluence (dare I say collusion?) between Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Republicans like Trump when it comes to the issue of regulating free markets in the name of “competition.”
He observes that this Orwellian notion tends to find support during periods of rising populism – such as today – despite the FTC’s abysmal track record of policing anti-competitive practices for the so-called “public interest.” Instead, the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division and the FTC have colluded with one another to maximize their own budgets while stifling innovation and creating an entire cottage industry in Washington D.C. for Microsoft lobbyists.
Young has a new, must-read series of blog posts explaining the flaws of antitrust regulation, as well as a paper titled “The Case Against Antitrust” [view Full Document as PDF]. We’ll break the topic down to basics this Sunday on the show of ideas, including the paradox of antitrust – namely that no monopoly can survive for long without favorable treatment from the government (often in the form of previous antitrust provisions).tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/667883198Sally Pipes on the High Cost of Free StuffMon, 19 Aug 2019 08:16:05 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/sally-pipes-on-the-high-cost-of-free-stuff
00:52:20TheBobZadekShownoHarry Truman once remarked, “Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on the one hand...', then 'but on the other…’”
In several states, politicians seem to be guided as if by these elusive one-handed economists in drafting legislation for single-payer healthcare.
In 2017, California’s state senate managed to pass a bill (still pending) that would force all Californians into a single, state-run health care system, but the state senate’s Appropriations Committee estimated it would cost more than twice the total state budget.
We can’t entirely blame politicians, since a majority of Americans seem to think that single-payer or “Medicare for All” would save them money and ensure access to healthcare.
But as Michael Munger has noted, the middleman – whether the notorious price-gouger or more mundane insurance broker – performs a vital service in a competitive market. Unfortunately, the health care market becomes less competitive with each new government intervention, so it’s no surprise that Americans are tired of the current system.
It’s time for a reality check.
Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of several books dissecting the magical thinking that makes unworkable “Medicare for All” proposals so popular.
The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care (2018) debunked the main claims made in favor of single payer. In January 2020, her latest book False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All will be released to coincide with what could be one of the most consequential elections in our history, as Democrats promise to remake a sector of the economy that constitutes 20% of total output.
Pipes joined me to review the unfounded claims made by demagogues like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, such as:
Single-payer increases quality – By most measures, the U.S. far outranks Canada and the UK in quality of care, including wait times and rates of recovery from serious illness. There’s a reason Canadians come to the U.S. for procedures.
Single payer saves money - “Between 2001 and 2016, spending by Canada’s provinces on health care shot up 116.4 percent. Costs are growing faster than the rest of the economy,” she writes.
In the book, we also learn that Medicare is the single biggest contributor to the national debt – around $400 billion per year.
As Cato’s Michael Cannon notes, “The Medicare program is a bonanza of centralized economic planning, special-interest lobbying, pricing errors, perverse incentives, low-quality care, improper payments, and fraud. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, Medicare is so corrupt, it’s thrilling.”
This is the same program that Bernie Sanders wants to expand into the world’s largest and most generous health care system in the world.
Listen to my interview with Sally to learn the difference between Medicare for All and the “Public Option,” and why we must stay on guard against so-called moderate proposals that are designed to give way to fully socialized medicine.Harry Truman once remarked, “Give me a one-handed…Harry Truman once remarked, “Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on the one hand...', then 'but on the other…’”
In several states, politicians seem to be guided as if by these elusive one-handed economists in drafting legislation for single-payer healthcare.
In 2017, California’s state senate managed to pass a bill (still pending) that would force all Californians into a single, state-run health care system, but the state senate’s Appropriations Committee estimated it would cost more than twice the total state budget.
We can’t entirely blame politicians, since a majority of Americans seem to think that single-payer or “Medicare for All” would save them money and ensure access to healthcare.
But as Michael Munger has noted, the middleman – whether the notorious price-gouger or more mundane insurance broker – performs a vital service in a competitive market. Unfortunately, the health care market becomes less competitive with each new government intervention, so it’s no surprise that Americans are tired of the current system.
It’s time for a reality check.
Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of several books dissecting the magical thinking that makes unworkable “Medicare for All” proposals so popular.
The False Promise of Single-Payer Health Care (2018) debunked the main claims made in favor of single payer. In January 2020, her latest book False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All will be released to coincide with what could be one of the most consequential elections in our history, as Democrats promise to remake a sector of the economy that constitutes 20% of total output.
Pipes joined me to review the unfounded claims made by demagogues like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, such as:
Single-payer increases quality – By most measures, the U.S. far outranks Canada and the UK in quality of care, including wait times and rates of recovery from serious illness. There’s a reason Canadians come to the U.S. for procedures.
Single payer saves money - “Between 2001 and 2016, spending by Canada’s provinces on health care shot up 116.4 percent. Costs are growing faster than the rest of the economy,” she writes.
In the book, we also learn that Medicare is the single biggest contributor to the national debt – around $400 billion per year.
As Cato’s Michael Cannon notes, “The Medicare program is a bonanza of centralized economic planning, special-interest lobbying, pricing errors, perverse incentives, low-quality care, improper payments, and fraud. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, Medicare is so corrupt, it’s thrilling.”
This is the same program that Bernie Sanders wants to expand into the world’s largest and most generous health care system in the world.
Listen to my interview with Sally to learn the difference between Medicare for All and the “Public Option,” and why we must stay on guard against so-called moderate proposals that are designed to give way to fully socialized medicine.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/664546484Theodore Dalrymple on Negligence and UnaccountabilityMon, 12 Aug 2019 04:15:49 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/theodore-dalrymple-on-negligence-and-unaccountability
00:51:49TheBobZadekShownoDoes an overweight patient deserve more resources from the government on account of his condition?
Should Washington D.C. treat mental disorders and addiction as “diseases,” like Parkinson’s, and subsidize treatment accordingly?
As healthcare spending approaches nearly 1/5 of the US economy, we might stop to ask whether the medical profession as a whole is able to think clearly about social and political questions like these.
Theodore Dalrymple is a retired British psychiatrist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who has taken upon himself the unenviable task of reading through every weekly issue of the 2018 New England Journal of Medicine. His new book, False Positive: A Year of Error, Omission, and Political Correctness in the New England Journal of Medicine, discovers a persistent bias from the editors of one of the world’s most respected medical journals.
In it, the lay-person is treated to Dalrymple’s wryly humorous writing and impeccable handle on complex sociological issues and statistical analysis, which often confound the esteemed contributors to the Journal. His most remarkable discovery is perhaps the information the authors and researchers fail to mention in their prestigious studies and reviews of the relevant literature.
For example, in assessing the efficacy of a Cholera vaccine in Haiti, the authors diligently note the year the disease arrived, but fail to mention that it was a UN peacekeeping envoy from Nepal that introduced the deadly virus to the island in 2010. This oversight reveals the taboo among elites against criticizing helper organizations like the UN, despite mounting evidence of their incompetence.
Or, take the treatment of addiction — an increasingly important issue in the medical field given the opioid epidemic of the last few decades. The addict is often presented as a patient whose illness relieves him from the blame and cost of treatment. The Journal’s editorial voice never waivers from this politically-correct stance, even though a reasonably smart high schooler can understand that addicts still retain their agency (and culpability) while in the grips of the substance. To suggest otherwise is to dehumanize and infantilize people, especially the lower class.
His innumerable books underline a consistent theme — that the upper classes (including doctors) are all too willing to give the lower classes a free pass for harmful behaviors, and aren’t doing them any favors by doing so.
This Sunday, Theodore joins me for the full hour to discuss the reasons for ever-increasing bureaucratization and socialization of medicine, and how these trends are encouraging unhealthy behaviors at increasing cost to the taxpayer.
Dalrymple — colloquially known as the “skeptical doctor” — is like a responsible adult administering a bitter pill of rationality to the less mature members of his profession, who think they can “make the world a better place” through merely wishing it were so.Does an overweight patient deserve more resources…Does an overweight patient deserve more resources from the government on account of his condition?
Should Washington D.C. treat mental disorders and addiction as “diseases,” like Parkinson’s, and subsidize treatment accordingly?
As healthcare spending approaches nearly 1/5 of the US economy, we might stop to ask whether the medical profession as a whole is able to think clearly about social and political questions like these.
Theodore Dalrymple is a retired British psychiatrist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who has taken upon himself the unenviable task of reading through every weekly issue of the 2018 New England Journal of Medicine. His new book, False Positive: A Year of Error, Omission, and Political Correctness in the New England Journal of Medicine, discovers a persistent bias from the editors of one of the world’s most respected medical journals.
In it, the lay-person is treated to Dalrymple’s wryly humorous writing and impeccable handle on complex sociological issues and statistical analysis, which often confound the esteemed contributors to the Journal. His most remarkable discovery is perhaps the information the authors and researchers fail to mention in their prestigious studies and reviews of the relevant literature.
For example, in assessing the efficacy of a Cholera vaccine in Haiti, the authors diligently note the year the disease arrived, but fail to mention that it was a UN peacekeeping envoy from Nepal that introduced the deadly virus to the island in 2010. This oversight reveals the taboo among elites against criticizing helper organizations like the UN, despite mounting evidence of their incompetence.
Or, take the treatment of addiction — an increasingly important issue in the medical field given the opioid epidemic of the last few decades. The addict is often presented as a patient whose illness relieves him from the blame and cost of treatment. The Journal’s editorial voice never waivers from this politically-correct stance, even though a reasonably smart high schooler can understand that addicts still retain their agency (and culpability) while in the grips of the substance. To suggest otherwise is to dehumanize and infantilize people, especially the lower class.
His innumerable books underline a consistent theme — that the upper classes (including doctors) are all too willing to give the lower classes a free pass for harmful behaviors, and aren’t doing them any favors by doing so.
This Sunday, Theodore joins me for the full hour to discuss the reasons for ever-increasing bureaucratization and socialization of medicine, and how these trends are encouraging unhealthy behaviors at increasing cost to the taxpayer.
Dalrymple — colloquially known as the “skeptical doctor” — is like a responsible adult administering a bitter pill of rationality to the less mature members of his profession, who think they can “make the world a better place” through merely wishing it were so.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/661416152Nicholas Sarwark on Libertarianism in 2020 and BeyondMon, 05 Aug 2019 15:02:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/nicholas-sarwark-on-libertarianism-in-2020-and-beyond
00:51:42TheBobZadekShownoThe LP National chair on the challenges for third parties and the trouble with Libertarian — Republican alliances.
subscribe: https://mailchi.mp/2a25a41c93ff/ideasnotattitude
itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/past-shows-the-bob-zadek-show/id902092400?mt=2
website: bobzadek.comThe LP National chair on the challenges for third…The LP National chair on the challenges for third parties and the trouble with Libertarian — Republican alliances.
subscribe: https://mailchi.mp/2a25a41c93ff/ideasnotattitude
itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/past-shows-the-bob-zadek-show/id902092400?mt=2
website: bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/657799280Socialism... Still Sucks.Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:05:55 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/socialismstill-sucks
00:52:04TheBobZadekShownoThere is a disturbing trend of politicians and their enablers trying to make socialism cool again. Larry White gives it a fitting label — “Murder Chic.”
First came the “communist party” shirts — a clever-enough cartoon depicting Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, and Mao having a rowdy time.
Then those hideous fur hats came into vogue.
But perhaps most unsettling is Kristen Ghodsee’s new book, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, which has the truly Orwellian subtitle, “And Other Arguments for Economic Independence.”
Let that sink in for a second…
Luckily, few are falling for the propaganda.
Ghodsee’s book sales are in the basement (#432,614 in Books and #776 in Communism & Socialism alone), while Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World is already ranked #1 among new releases in the “Beers” category; 38,000th (and climbing) overall — a full week before the release!
The book is a hilarious new broadside by the The Independent Institute’s Ben Powell and his co-author Robert Lawson.
“In Cuba… the central planners decided they only need two kinds [of beer]… Both taste like Budweiser that’s been left out in the sun.”
Powell and Lawson know that academic arguments did not cause the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rather, it was the superiority of goods and services available in West Berlin that forced the Soviet tyrants to let their people go… shopping. The book demonstrates this with flair—comparing the swill from former Soviet-bloc countries to the diverse and alluring brews of the free world.
What better way to dismantle the new wave of socialist propaganda than to launch Socialism Sucks to the top of the Amazon best-seller rankings before its launch?
Ben Powell returns to the show this Sunday to share his journey “drinking his way through the unfree world.”
Want to annoy a commie?
Click here to purchase from Amazon.com, and pre-order a copy for a beer-loving Bernie-supporting friend.
A good buzz may be the most effective form of persuasion out there.
Help set Ben and Bob’s book to #1 in the Communism in Socialism category. Listen to the show now.There is a disturbing trend of politicians and th…There is a disturbing trend of politicians and their enablers trying to make socialism cool again. Larry White gives it a fitting label — “Murder Chic.”
First came the “communist party” shirts — a clever-enough cartoon depicting Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, and Mao having a rowdy time.
Then those hideous fur hats came into vogue.
But perhaps most unsettling is Kristen Ghodsee’s new book, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, which has the truly Orwellian subtitle, “And Other Arguments for Economic Independence.”
Let that sink in for a second…
Luckily, few are falling for the propaganda.
Ghodsee’s book sales are in the basement (#432,614 in Books and #776 in Communism & Socialism alone), while Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World is already ranked #1 among new releases in the “Beers” category; 38,000th (and climbing) overall — a full week before the release!
The book is a hilarious new broadside by the The Independent Institute’s Ben Powell and his co-author Robert Lawson.
“In Cuba… the central planners decided they only need two kinds [of beer]… Both taste like Budweiser that’s been left out in the sun.”
Powell and Lawson know that academic arguments did not cause the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rather, it was the superiority of goods and services available in West Berlin that forced the Soviet tyrants to let their people go… shopping. The book demonstrates this with flair—comparing the swill from former Soviet-bloc countries to the diverse and alluring brews of the free world.
What better way to dismantle the new wave of socialist propaganda than to launch Socialism Sucks to the top of the Amazon best-seller rankings before its launch?
Ben Powell returns to the show this Sunday to share his journey “drinking his way through the unfree world.”
Want to annoy a commie?
Click here to purchase from Amazon.com, and pre-order a copy for a beer-loving Bernie-supporting friend.
A good buzz may be the most effective form of persuasion out there.
Help set Ben and Bob’s book to #1 in the Communism in Socialism category. Listen to the show now.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/654671198John Marini on *Unmasking the Administrative State*Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:18:11 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/john-marini-on-unmasking-the-administrative-state
00:51:15TheBobZadekShownoWhen Donald Trump arrived in Washington D.C., the establishment went nuts. Even more so than the left-wing enclaves of San Francisco and New York, our nation’s capitol was uniquely vulnerable to the disruption Trump represented to the status quo.
Some likened him to a wrecking ball — others to an outsider, “draining the swamp.”
And in many ways, Trump has paradoxically used the power of his office to dismantle many of the executive agencies and authority that previous presidents have co-opted from the legislative branch.
At the same time, the imbalance of powers did not come about over night, and it will be impossible for any single politician to dismantle what many call “the Deep State.”
More precisely, what Trump is grappling with is an administrative state with deep roots going back to at least the Progressive Era, and likely much further as my next guest illustrates.
John Marini has written the definitive book on the historical and philosophical origins of the administrative state in his new book, “Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century.”
Marini finds the ethos behind increasingly centralized authority in the very idea of “Progress.” Philosophers like Friedrich Hegel envisioned progressing being ushered in by a sort of secular deity — a government possessing vast scientific knowledge of the various aspects of governance, capable of remedying the most intractable social woes.
Unfortunately for Hegel and his political descendants (i.e., Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc.), the American Constitution enshrined a very different idea of the proper role of government.
The Founders’ Constitution expressly limited the power of government and demanded that laws be made by political representatives of the people — not faraway unaccountable bureaucrats.
When De Toqueville came to America, he observed a robust civil society that seemed to cut against the alleged need for an administrative authority to manage the affairs of the citizenry. But he also saw that a creeping “democratic despotism” could arise from centralized administration such as the current alphabet soup of executive agencies that now interfere in the most minute affairs of American life.
In this episode of the show of ideas, not attitude, we put the capstone on the world’s longest running radio series on the administrative state. Bob welcomes Marini to discuss his under-appreciated scholarship, and to provide a definitive guide to the “Deep State” for a media that seems to never quite know what it means when it uses the term.
Marini is a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University, and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School.
He began to study what we now call the administrative state over 40 years ago. In Unmasking the Administrative State, we learn how bureaucracy caters to special interests and obstructs any attempts by Congress or the President to bring it down to size. He takes on the notion that politics is only for the experts and argues that the only way to restore America is by imbuing it with a spirit of democratic participation.When Donald Trump arrived in Washington D.C., the…When Donald Trump arrived in Washington D.C., the establishment went nuts. Even more so than the left-wing enclaves of San Francisco and New York, our nation’s capitol was uniquely vulnerable to the disruption Trump represented to the status quo.
Some likened him to a wrecking ball — others to an outsider, “draining the swamp.”
And in many ways, Trump has paradoxically used the power of his office to dismantle many of the executive agencies and authority that previous presidents have co-opted from the legislative branch.
At the same time, the imbalance of powers did not come about over night, and it will be impossible for any single politician to dismantle what many call “the Deep State.”
More precisely, what Trump is grappling with is an administrative state with deep roots going back to at least the Progressive Era, and likely much further as my next guest illustrates.
John Marini has written the definitive book on the historical and philosophical origins of the administrative state in his new book, “Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century.”
Marini finds the ethos behind increasingly centralized authority in the very idea of “Progress.” Philosophers like Friedrich Hegel envisioned progressing being ushered in by a sort of secular deity — a government possessing vast scientific knowledge of the various aspects of governance, capable of remedying the most intractable social woes.
Unfortunately for Hegel and his political descendants (i.e., Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc.), the American Constitution enshrined a very different idea of the proper role of government.
The Founders’ Constitution expressly limited the power of government and demanded that laws be made by political representatives of the people — not faraway unaccountable bureaucrats.
When De Toqueville came to America, he observed a robust civil society that seemed to cut against the alleged need for an administrative authority to manage the affairs of the citizenry. But he also saw that a creeping “democratic despotism” could arise from centralized administration such as the current alphabet soup of executive agencies that now interfere in the most minute affairs of American life.
In this episode of the show of ideas, not attitude, we put the capstone on the world’s longest running radio series on the administrative state. Bob welcomes Marini to discuss his under-appreciated scholarship, and to provide a definitive guide to the “Deep State” for a media that seems to never quite know what it means when it uses the term.
Marini is a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University, and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School.
He began to study what we now call the administrative state over 40 years ago. In Unmasking the Administrative State, we learn how bureaucracy caters to special interests and obstructs any attempts by Congress or the President to bring it down to size. He takes on the notion that politics is only for the experts and argues that the only way to restore America is by imbuing it with a spirit of democratic participation.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/651346121Jeffrey Singer: The "Doctor for Liberty" on Opioid Abuse, Harm Reduction, and ObamaCareMon, 15 Jul 2019 10:34:05 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jeffrey-singer-the-doctor-for-liberty-on-opioid-abuse-harm-reduction-and-obamacare
00:52:00TheBobZadekShownoDr. Jeffrey Singer, an Arizona surgeon and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, has a message that some Americans will consider a bitter pill to swallow:
People will always use drugs, and many will harm themselves and others in the process.
The government’s response to this fact of life has been a multi-billion dollar failed War on Drugs.
The best evidence suggests that not only has this war failed to achieve its intended aim, it has actually made the problems of drug abuse and overdose worse.
The “Doctor for Liberty” returned to the show to update me on the latest research into so-called “harm reduction” strategies that have proved much more successful than the War on Drugs in limiting addiction and fatalities from heroine overdose.
We also discussed the latest challenge to ObamaCare, which is working its way through to courts and appears likely to reach the Supreme Court before 2020. If you’ve worried about the Supreme Court becoming too political, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rzadek?lang=en
Subscribe: https://mailchi.mp/2a25a41c93ff/ideasnotattitude
youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNnMovU6EgJdpGydEERIR-gDr. Jeffrey Singer, an Arizona surgeon and Senior…Dr. Jeffrey Singer, an Arizona surgeon and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, has a message that some Americans will consider a bitter pill to swallow:
People will always use drugs, and many will harm themselves and others in the process.
The government’s response to this fact of life has been a multi-billion dollar failed War on Drugs.
The best evidence suggests that not only has this war failed to achieve its intended aim, it has actually made the problems of drug abuse and overdose worse.
The “Doctor for Liberty” returned to the show to update me on the latest research into so-called “harm reduction” strategies that have proved much more successful than the War on Drugs in limiting addiction and fatalities from heroine overdose.
We also discussed the latest challenge to ObamaCare, which is working its way through to courts and appears likely to reach the Supreme Court before 2020. If you’ve worried about the Supreme Court becoming too political, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rzadek?lang=en
Subscribe: https://mailchi.mp/2a25a41c93ff/ideasnotattitude
youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNnMovU6EgJdpGydEERIR-gtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/645708219Defining the "Deep State", with Jeffrey BergnerWed, 03 Jul 2019 16:16:09 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/zadek-06-30-19-fullshow
00:52:09TheBobZadekShowno5 things to know about The Vanishing Congress:
The Book - The Vanishing Congress: Reflections on Politics in Washington [Amazon]
The Topic - Former FBI Director James Comey recently denied the existence of a “deep state.” Rather, he says there is a “deep culture” of so-called meritocratic technocracy. That sounds like deep euphemism to me, but it’s worth asking what this vague and sinister term actually means before asking whether it exists.
Jeffrey Bergner, author of The Vanishing Congress, is a long-time Washington insider who has found the roots of something like a deep state in the legislative branch’s abdication of its one job: to make the laws. This might sound like a dream come true for libertarians, but since nature abhors a vacuum, this vital function ends up getting usurped by unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable district judges.
The Guest - Jeffrey Bergner served as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs from 2005 until July 2008. He is the President and Managing Financial Partner of Bergner Bockorny, Inc., as well as an adjunct professor at the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.
The Problem - Bergner says that Congress has ceded too much of its authority to the executive branch — with its mutant bureaucratic army — and broken down the checks and balances that the Founders designed to ensure that government represents the people and not its own entrenched interests. When the executive branch is given such broad leverage to implement laws without express authorization of Congress, presidents and executive agencies are encouraged to legislate by fiat. Then come the executive orders…
The Solution - For starters, Bergner suggests that Congress would be 20% more efficient with 20% fewer staff. I’m conflicted, since I like the idea of shrinking government, but I’m not so sure about increasing congressional “efficiency.” Is getting more stuff done always a good thing?
I’ll question Bergner on this idea, as well as his proposal to reduce debate on cabinet nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours, and how direct election of senators forever changed the political landscape in America.5 things to know about The Vanishing Congress:
T…5 things to know about The Vanishing Congress:
The Book - The Vanishing Congress: Reflections on Politics in Washington [Amazon]
The Topic - Former FBI Director James Comey recently denied the existence of a “deep state.” Rather, he says there is a “deep culture” of so-called meritocratic technocracy. That sounds like deep euphemism to me, but it’s worth asking what this vague and sinister term actually means before asking whether it exists.
Jeffrey Bergner, author of The Vanishing Congress, is a long-time Washington insider who has found the roots of something like a deep state in the legislative branch’s abdication of its one job: to make the laws. This might sound like a dream come true for libertarians, but since nature abhors a vacuum, this vital function ends up getting usurped by unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable district judges.
The Guest - Jeffrey Bergner served as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs from 2005 until July 2008. He is the President and Managing Financial Partner of Bergner Bockorny, Inc., as well as an adjunct professor at the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.
The Problem - Bergner says that Congress has ceded too much of its authority to the executive branch — with its mutant bureaucratic army — and broken down the checks and balances that the Founders designed to ensure that government represents the people and not its own entrenched interests. When the executive branch is given such broad leverage to implement laws without express authorization of Congress, presidents and executive agencies are encouraged to legislate by fiat. Then come the executive orders…
The Solution - For starters, Bergner suggests that Congress would be 20% more efficient with 20% fewer staff. I’m conflicted, since I like the idea of shrinking government, but I’m not so sure about increasing congressional “efficiency.” Is getting more stuff done always a good thing?
I’ll question Bergner on this idea, as well as his proposal to reduce debate on cabinet nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours, and how direct election of senators forever changed the political landscape in America.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/641395704Frank Buckley on Regulating Social Media CensorshipMon, 24 Jun 2019 16:22:34 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/frank-buckley-on-regulating-social-media-censorship
00:50:50TheBobZadekShownoMY TAKE:
YouTube should be free to discriminate. Change my mind.
The debate over online free speech continues, with YouTube's decision to "demonetize" the channels of hundreds of controversial personalities, including conservative comedian and provocateur Steven Crowder.
I spoke to Frank Buckley about his idea for a governmental check on "woke" social media censorship.
As a libertarian, I hold that private corporations can decide what content they allow on their platforms, but Buckley thinks social networks are more like public utilities - i.e., monopolies in need of oversight.
Unlike traditional monopolies, however, YouTube can't just be split up into a bunch of smaller online video streaming websites.
Instead, Buckley says Trump should appoint a "Social Media Commissioner," in the mold of the Federal Election Commission or Board of Broadcast Governors to investigate bias in the algorithms.MY TAKE:
YouTube should be free to discriminate.…MY TAKE:
YouTube should be free to discriminate. Change my mind.
The debate over online free speech continues, with YouTube's decision to "demonetize" the channels of hundreds of controversial personalities, including conservative comedian and provocateur Steven Crowder.
I spoke to Frank Buckley about his idea for a governmental check on "woke" social media censorship.
As a libertarian, I hold that private corporations can decide what content they allow on their platforms, but Buckley thinks social networks are more like public utilities - i.e., monopolies in need of oversight.
Unlike traditional monopolies, however, YouTube can't just be split up into a bunch of smaller online video streaming websites.
Instead, Buckley says Trump should appoint a "Social Media Commissioner," in the mold of the Federal Election Commission or Board of Broadcast Governors to investigate bias in the algorithms.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/638015937Veronique de Rugy on the Gender Pay GapMon, 17 Jun 2019 14:50:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/veronique-de-rugy
00:52:03TheBobZadekShownoOver 60 years ago, University of Chicago economist Gary Becker laid out the economic logic of discrimination and noted how the market punishes arbitrary discrimination through competition.
Robert Murphy summarizes it as follows:
“In a free market, the owner has the legal right to hire whomever he wants. After all, it’s his restaurant, and the wages he pays are (initially) his property. But if he allows nepotism to influence his hiring decision, he suffers an implicit fine of $1.50 per hour. He makes less money if he makes employment decisions based on factors, such as family relationships, that have nothing to do with the job.”
— The Economics of DiscriminationOver 60 years ago, University of Chicago economis…Over 60 years ago, University of Chicago economist Gary Becker laid out the economic logic of discrimination and noted how the market punishes arbitrary discrimination through competition.
Robert Murphy summarizes it as follows:
“In a free market, the owner has the legal right to hire whomever he wants. After all, it’s his restaurant, and the wages he pays are (initially) his property. But if he allows nepotism to influence his hiring decision, he suffers an implicit fine of $1.50 per hour. He makes less money if he makes employment decisions based on factors, such as family relationships, that have nothing to do with the job.”
— The Economics of Discriminationtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/634521954Gentrification and Rent Control with Charlie DeistMon, 10 Jun 2019 14:39:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/gentrification-and-rent-control-with-charlie-deist
00:51:41TheBobZadekShownoSan Francisco - a city notorious for its lack of affordable housing - will celebrate the 40th anniversary of rent control policies next week.
Meanwhile, homelessness and housing shortages have reached crisis levels in the city.
While some may look at the housing crisis as evidence for the need for more sweeping protections for tenants, those who study the subject say that such policies are in fact responsible for the current crisis.
Even the socialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck noted that, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city - except for bombing it."San Francisco - a city notorious for its lack of …San Francisco - a city notorious for its lack of affordable housing - will celebrate the 40th anniversary of rent control policies next week.
Meanwhile, homelessness and housing shortages have reached crisis levels in the city.
While some may look at the housing crisis as evidence for the need for more sweeping protections for tenants, those who study the subject say that such policies are in fact responsible for the current crisis.
Even the socialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck noted that, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city - except for bombing it."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/631037904On Foreign Policy, will Trump heed the Restraining Constituency or John Bolton?Mon, 03 Jun 2019 19:27:19 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/on-foreign-policy-will-trump-heed-the-restraining-constituency-or-john-bolton
00:51:55TheBobZadekShownoIn his State of the Union address in February, President Trump sounded like a non-interventionist when he said, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Since then, he has begun to draw down America’s military presence in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Due to the growing unpopularity of drawn-out wars in the Middle East, and Trump’s focus on reelection in 2020, he probably does not want to start another endless war with Iran. However, much of his rhetoric has been hawkish — perhaps influenced by his national security advisor, arch-hawk neocon John Bolton.
The latest news is that he is growing disenchanted with Bolton, who helped design the Iraq War and has even called for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.In his State of the Union address in February, Pr…In his State of the Union address in February, President Trump sounded like a non-interventionist when he said, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Since then, he has begun to draw down America’s military presence in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Due to the growing unpopularity of drawn-out wars in the Middle East, and Trump’s focus on reelection in 2020, he probably does not want to start another endless war with Iran. However, much of his rhetoric has been hawkish — perhaps influenced by his national security advisor, arch-hawk neocon John Bolton.
The latest news is that he is growing disenchanted with Bolton, who helped design the Iraq War and has even called for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/627360918What Part of Illegal Immigration Are You Against?Mon, 27 May 2019 14:42:11 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/what-part-of-illegal-immigration-are-you-against
00:51:04TheBobZadekShownoConservative blogs are fond of spreading statistics like, "Most Federal Crimes Involve Immigration, Drugs and are Executed by Hispanics" [Judicial Watch] to support policies that would restrict immigration to the U.S. from Mexico.
These articles are highly misleading. In most cases, the crime in question is the illegal immigration itself, which says little about immigrants rates of violent crime. In fact, if there is a link between immigration and crime, it seems to be inverse - i.e., immigrants are on average less likely to commit crimes.
Articles like the one linked above unintentionally illustrate a point I often make about immigration, using the Socratic method. I ask opponents of illegal immigration which part they oppose - the "illegal" part, or the "immigrant."
If it's the illegal part, there is a simple solution. It's naturalizing more immigrants, and it's the opposite of what President Trump is asking of Congress to do.
After watching their bizarre contortions for a minute or so, I usually declare victory.Conservative blogs are fond of spreading statisti…Conservative blogs are fond of spreading statistics like, "Most Federal Crimes Involve Immigration, Drugs and are Executed by Hispanics" [Judicial Watch] to support policies that would restrict immigration to the U.S. from Mexico.
These articles are highly misleading. In most cases, the crime in question is the illegal immigration itself, which says little about immigrants rates of violent crime. In fact, if there is a link between immigration and crime, it seems to be inverse - i.e., immigrants are on average less likely to commit crimes.
Articles like the one linked above unintentionally illustrate a point I often make about immigration, using the Socratic method. I ask opponents of illegal immigration which part they oppose - the "illegal" part, or the "immigrant."
If it's the illegal part, there is a simple solution. It's naturalizing more immigrants, and it's the opposite of what President Trump is asking of Congress to do.
After watching their bizarre contortions for a minute or so, I usually declare victory.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/619955361AMERICAN DEFAULTMon, 13 May 2019 15:15:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/american-default
00:50:11TheBobZadekShownoSebastian Edwards on a forgotten episode in U.S. history
The United States Treasury Bill is an IOU issued by the federal government. It has long been considered a risk-free asset, and while it may not offer a high return these days, at least they promise your money back. After all, they say the U.S. has never defaulted on its debt in its 240-year history.
In studying the 16-year long saga of Argentina’s default (which began in 2001), UCLA economics professor Sebastian Edwards frequently heard this view expressed, only to discover that it was not true.
His new book, American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and the Battle over Gold (Princeton University Press, 2018) documents a forgotten episode in which the U.S. technically defaulted on its debts in the form of President Roosevelt’s 1934 devaluation of the dollar.Sebastian Edwards on a forgotten episode in U.S. …Sebastian Edwards on a forgotten episode in U.S. history
The United States Treasury Bill is an IOU issued by the federal government. It has long been considered a risk-free asset, and while it may not offer a high return these days, at least they promise your money back. After all, they say the U.S. has never defaulted on its debt in its 240-year history.
In studying the 16-year long saga of Argentina’s default (which began in 2001), UCLA economics professor Sebastian Edwards frequently heard this view expressed, only to discover that it was not true.
His new book, American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and the Battle over Gold (Princeton University Press, 2018) documents a forgotten episode in which the U.S. technically defaulted on its debts in the form of President Roosevelt’s 1934 devaluation of the dollar.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/616533654Hugo Chavez: Failed MessiahMon, 06 May 2019 15:19:25 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/hugo-chavez-failed-messiah
00:50:33TheBobZadekShownoWhen we last heard from Clif Ross, Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship seemed to be on the brink of collapse. Months later, Nicolás Maduro has managed to cling to power throughout the blackouts and riots that have darkened a country with so much natural wealth and potential for prosperity.
Clif, a poet, film director, and former Bolivarian revolutionary, lost many of his former “comrades” when he conclusively rejected socialist ideology once it became impossible for him to ignore its failure in Venezuela. His memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia: A Journey through American Revolutions, documents this conversion and was the subject of Bob’s discussion with him back in January. However, that conversation left little time to dig into the current situation in Venezuela, which is deteriorating more and more each day.
Since January, Clif published a lengthy mea culpa of sorts in Quillette, documenting how he “had drifted — at first gradually, but then definitively — into the camp of my former ‘enemies,’ persuaded by their narrative and by the evidence before my own eyes.”
The article was publicized by Jordan Peterson and others whose praise further eroded whatever remaining sympathies the hard-left may have had for Clif. Despite the adulation from conservatives and libertarians, Clif remains an independent thinker who won’t be pigeonholed into any ideological camp.
Neither left nor right, Clif’s worldview is rooted in more nuanced theological and philosophical ideas. He subscribes to Thomas Sowell’s view, laid out in The Vision of the Anointed, which pits the unconstrained, or utopian worldview against the constrained, or tragic worldview. The latter assumes that people behave in their self interest, and that governments should not be too ambitious in trying to change human nature.
Clif returns to the show this Sunday with producer and guest host Charlie Deist to pick up where he left off, discussing the similarities between Bolivarian socialism and other versions of “Apocalyptic Utopian Messianic Millenarianism (AUMM)” seen throughout history.
When the tragedy in Venezuela is viewed through the lens of mankind’s religious yearnings, Hugo Chavez emerges as a kind of false messiah — one anointed by himself and his followers to usher in heaven on Earth (paging Dr. Muravchik). When the ailing Chavez failed to bring about the promised socialist utopia, he hand-picked Nicolas Maduro as his replacement in an alternative form of apostolic succession. The remaining true believers are scrambling to resuscitate the failing revolution, accusing the opposition leader John Guiado of being a puppet of U.S. imperialists, and calling the popular protests an illegitimate coup.
Charlie and Clif discuss the “synoptic delusion” of socialist dictators, which leads them to believe they can steer markets and society through centralized control. They will also touch on the dangers of holding too strong a political identity, and how ideology hampers the quest for objectivity.When we last heard from Clif Ross, Venezuela’s so…When we last heard from Clif Ross, Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship seemed to be on the brink of collapse. Months later, Nicolás Maduro has managed to cling to power throughout the blackouts and riots that have darkened a country with so much natural wealth and potential for prosperity.
Clif, a poet, film director, and former Bolivarian revolutionary, lost many of his former “comrades” when he conclusively rejected socialist ideology once it became impossible for him to ignore its failure in Venezuela. His memoir, Home from the Dark Side of Utopia: A Journey through American Revolutions, documents this conversion and was the subject of Bob’s discussion with him back in January. However, that conversation left little time to dig into the current situation in Venezuela, which is deteriorating more and more each day.
Since January, Clif published a lengthy mea culpa of sorts in Quillette, documenting how he “had drifted — at first gradually, but then definitively — into the camp of my former ‘enemies,’ persuaded by their narrative and by the evidence before my own eyes.”
The article was publicized by Jordan Peterson and others whose praise further eroded whatever remaining sympathies the hard-left may have had for Clif. Despite the adulation from conservatives and libertarians, Clif remains an independent thinker who won’t be pigeonholed into any ideological camp.
Neither left nor right, Clif’s worldview is rooted in more nuanced theological and philosophical ideas. He subscribes to Thomas Sowell’s view, laid out in The Vision of the Anointed, which pits the unconstrained, or utopian worldview against the constrained, or tragic worldview. The latter assumes that people behave in their self interest, and that governments should not be too ambitious in trying to change human nature.
Clif returns to the show this Sunday with producer and guest host Charlie Deist to pick up where he left off, discussing the similarities between Bolivarian socialism and other versions of “Apocalyptic Utopian Messianic Millenarianism (AUMM)” seen throughout history.
When the tragedy in Venezuela is viewed through the lens of mankind’s religious yearnings, Hugo Chavez emerges as a kind of false messiah — one anointed by himself and his followers to usher in heaven on Earth (paging Dr. Muravchik). When the ailing Chavez failed to bring about the promised socialist utopia, he hand-picked Nicolas Maduro as his replacement in an alternative form of apostolic succession. The remaining true believers are scrambling to resuscitate the failing revolution, accusing the opposition leader John Guiado of being a puppet of U.S. imperialists, and calling the popular protests an illegitimate coup.
Charlie and Clif discuss the “synoptic delusion” of socialist dictators, which leads them to believe they can steer markets and society through centralized control. They will also touch on the dangers of holding too strong a political identity, and how ideology hampers the quest for objectivity.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/613127766Bill Ottman on Social Media CensorshipMon, 29 Apr 2019 14:50:10 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bill-ottman-on-social-media-censorship
00:50:59TheBobZadekShownoEarlier this week, President Trump sat down in the Oval Office with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to talk about, among other things, Twitter’s censorship policies, and his own follower count. Trump asked if Twitter had discriminated against him — his 45 million followers pale in comparison to Barack Obama’s 105 million, not to mention Katy Perry’s 108 million.
Perhaps Trump’s ego is interfering with his ability to see clearly on this issue, but social media censorship is still a vital topic of concern for all Americans who value free speech.Earlier this week, President Trump sat down in th…Earlier this week, President Trump sat down in the Oval Office with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to talk about, among other things, Twitter’s censorship policies, and his own follower count. Trump asked if Twitter had discriminated against him — his 45 million followers pale in comparison to Barack Obama’s 105 million, not to mention Katy Perry’s 108 million.
Perhaps Trump’s ego is interfering with his ability to see clearly on this issue, but social media censorship is still a vital topic of concern for all Americans who value free speech.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/609704904Court Packing with Ilya SominMon, 22 Apr 2019 14:12:05 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/court-packing-with-ilya-somin
00:50:32TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin says there is no legitimacy crisis, unless Democrats demand one.Ilya Somin says there is no legitimacy crisis, un…Ilya Somin says there is no legitimacy crisis, unless Democrats demand one.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/606328389Joshua Muravchik on Socialism ReincarnatedMon, 15 Apr 2019 14:38:54 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/joshua-muravchik-on-socialism-reincarnated
00:52:17TheBobZadekShownoIn his 2003 book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, World Affairs Institute fellow Joshua Muravchik documents the many faces of socialism throughout history, and none of them are pretty. In a piece for the Wall Street Journal this week, Muravchik notes that even the best case scenarios for socialism have been disasters (or else morphed into something that was no longer socialism). Now he’s publishing a new edition that includes “the Afterlife,” on the recent reincarnation of the bad idea that just won’t stay dead.In his 2003 book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fa…In his 2003 book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, World Affairs Institute fellow Joshua Muravchik documents the many faces of socialism throughout history, and none of them are pretty. In a piece for the Wall Street Journal this week, Muravchik notes that even the best case scenarios for socialism have been disasters (or else morphed into something that was no longer socialism). Now he’s publishing a new edition that includes “the Afterlife,” on the recent reincarnation of the bad idea that just won’t stay dead.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/602907000Demystifying the Supreme CourtMon, 08 Apr 2019 18:07:50 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/demystifying-the-supreme-court
00:51:38TheBobZadekShownoDuring the Kavanaugh hearings, pundits and journalists mused whether the circus around his nomination hearings might be leading to a crisis of legitimacy on the Supreme Court.
Notably, these musings mostly came from the left and those who opposed Kavanaugh ideologically. Their very utterance was an instance of further politicizing and de-legitimizing of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court was intended by the founders to remain "above the fray." But the political tit-for-tat around increasingly divisive confirmation hearings is just the tip of the iceberg of a legitimacy crisis that has been brewing for much longer.
David Kaplan's new book, The Most Dangerous Branch, is a deep dive into the history and personalities that have turned the Supreme Court into the hyper-politicized and self-aggrandizing institution it is today. He takes readers into the heart of the "Marble Palace," where the nine black-robed justices have sat enthroned since 1935, deciding some of the most controversial issues in American life.
How did we get to a place where nine individuals hold so much power - where Supreme Court Justices are viewed as demigods?
Against the narrative of "Supreme Court as Jedi High Council" comes Kaplan's revealing and occasionally unflattering portrait of the Trump Court.
The Supreme Court is not and ought not be our only hope, he says.
The book provides a fascinating glimpse into the personalities and egos of judges - both those who have ultimately been confirmed and those whose enthusiasm and jockeying for a nomination ended up disqualifying them. It's a sobering reminder that the justices on the Supreme Court are not deities, but merely lawyers - and humans at that.During the Kavanaugh hearings, pundits and journa…During the Kavanaugh hearings, pundits and journalists mused whether the circus around his nomination hearings might be leading to a crisis of legitimacy on the Supreme Court.
Notably, these musings mostly came from the left and those who opposed Kavanaugh ideologically. Their very utterance was an instance of further politicizing and de-legitimizing of the judicial branch. The Supreme Court was intended by the founders to remain "above the fray." But the political tit-for-tat around increasingly divisive confirmation hearings is just the tip of the iceberg of a legitimacy crisis that has been brewing for much longer.
David Kaplan's new book, The Most Dangerous Branch, is a deep dive into the history and personalities that have turned the Supreme Court into the hyper-politicized and self-aggrandizing institution it is today. He takes readers into the heart of the "Marble Palace," where the nine black-robed justices have sat enthroned since 1935, deciding some of the most controversial issues in American life.
How did we get to a place where nine individuals hold so much power - where Supreme Court Justices are viewed as demigods?
Against the narrative of "Supreme Court as Jedi High Council" comes Kaplan's revealing and occasionally unflattering portrait of the Trump Court.
The Supreme Court is not and ought not be our only hope, he says.
The book provides a fascinating glimpse into the personalities and egos of judges - both those who have ultimately been confirmed and those whose enthusiasm and jockeying for a nomination ended up disqualifying them. It's a sobering reminder that the justices on the Supreme Court are not deities, but merely lawyers - and humans at that.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/599319108David Henderson on Trumponomics, Deficits, and OptimismMon, 01 Apr 2019 16:44:28 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/david-henderson-on-trumponomics-deficits-and-optimism
00:52:05TheBobZadekShownoBack in October, Bob spent an hour with Stephen Moore – former president of the Club for Growth, and author of *Trumponomics.* Moore is a supply-side economist, meaning he thinks that many tax cuts pay for themselves in the long run. He and Bob talked about why the drop in the corporate income tax from 35% to 20% was good news for average Americans, and Bob asked why not drop it even lower? Arthur Laffer, Moore’s co-author on Trumponomics, is famous for the Laffer curve, which counterintuitively holds that you can raise even more revenue by lowering taxes, since that creates higher growth and more incentives to produce wealth, which means a bigger tax base.
Naturally, a businessman like Donald Trump would be interested in that kind of idea, so he has consulted Moore on a number of his key economic policies — including, thankfully, free trade. Moore has pushed Trump to remove tariffs, and for the time being we seem to be angling in that direction. Now, President Trump has nominated Stephen Moore to the Federal Reserve Board, which many take as a sign that of the on-going politicization of the central bank. Moore wrote an oped in the Wall Street Journal which called the Fed a “threat to growth,” and by some measures it does look like the recent tightening is going beyond what’s necessary to keep inflation in line.
Professor Emeritus David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California joined this show’s producer, Charlie Deist, to give an update on how Trumponomics is playing out in the economy, and analyze whether the growth we have seen under Trump’s presidency is sustainable. They also discuss whether Moore is a suitable candidate for the Federal Reserve Board, or whether his pro-growth, free-market optimism would be better utilized in a different position.
Lastly, the talk about the unusual proposition of a strategic default, which would let taxpayers off the hook and leave bondholders holding the bag for the risk they took in trusting such an undisciplined spender like the U.S. government.Back in October, Bob spent an hour with Stephen M…Back in October, Bob spent an hour with Stephen Moore – former president of the Club for Growth, and author of *Trumponomics.* Moore is a supply-side economist, meaning he thinks that many tax cuts pay for themselves in the long run. He and Bob talked about why the drop in the corporate income tax from 35% to 20% was good news for average Americans, and Bob asked why not drop it even lower? Arthur Laffer, Moore’s co-author on Trumponomics, is famous for the Laffer curve, which counterintuitively holds that you can raise even more revenue by lowering taxes, since that creates higher growth and more incentives to produce wealth, which means a bigger tax base.
Naturally, a businessman like Donald Trump would be interested in that kind of idea, so he has consulted Moore on a number of his key economic policies — including, thankfully, free trade. Moore has pushed Trump to remove tariffs, and for the time being we seem to be angling in that direction. Now, President Trump has nominated Stephen Moore to the Federal Reserve Board, which many take as a sign that of the on-going politicization of the central bank. Moore wrote an oped in the Wall Street Journal which called the Fed a “threat to growth,” and by some measures it does look like the recent tightening is going beyond what’s necessary to keep inflation in line.
Professor Emeritus David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California joined this show’s producer, Charlie Deist, to give an update on how Trumponomics is playing out in the economy, and analyze whether the growth we have seen under Trump’s presidency is sustainable. They also discuss whether Moore is a suitable candidate for the Federal Reserve Board, or whether his pro-growth, free-market optimism would be better utilized in a different position.
Lastly, the talk about the unusual proposition of a strategic default, which would let taxpayers off the hook and leave bondholders holding the bag for the risk they took in trusting such an undisciplined spender like the U.S. government.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/595578111Libertarian Anti-Poverty Policy with Michael TannerMon, 25 Mar 2019 15:18:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-anti-poverty-policy-with-michael-tanner
00:50:32TheBobZadekShownoA few weeks ago, Elizabeth Nolan Brown explained how the War on Sex Workers is making the problems usually associated with prostitution worse. I noted that it seems like a rule that whenever government declares war on something, bad things happen.
The War on Poverty has been no exception. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson sought prevent and even cure poverty, much like Nixon unsuccessfully sought to cure cancer. Some 60 years later, the poor are still with us and bad policies alleviate poverty effectively trap them there.
The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has written the definitive book on a libertarian anti-poverty policy. The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor is both readable yet scholarly. It plots the history of welfare from the Middle Ages to the present, and shows how the current system arose from two conflicting outlooks about why poverty exists. Both liberals and conservatives have missed the mark in their diagnosis and, more importantly, their cure for poverty.
Free markets and exponential growth have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, but government continues to create artificial barriers that keep people stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. We can start by pointing out the harmful effects of minimum wages, occupational licensing and the like, but it goes much beyond this.A few weeks ago, Elizabeth Nolan Brown explained …A few weeks ago, Elizabeth Nolan Brown explained how the War on Sex Workers is making the problems usually associated with prostitution worse. I noted that it seems like a rule that whenever government declares war on something, bad things happen.
The War on Poverty has been no exception. In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson sought prevent and even cure poverty, much like Nixon unsuccessfully sought to cure cancer. Some 60 years later, the poor are still with us and bad policies alleviate poverty effectively trap them there.
The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has written the definitive book on a libertarian anti-poverty policy. The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor is both readable yet scholarly. It plots the history of welfare from the Middle Ages to the present, and shows how the current system arose from two conflicting outlooks about why poverty exists. Both liberals and conservatives have missed the mark in their diagnosis and, more importantly, their cure for poverty.
Free markets and exponential growth have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, but government continues to create artificial barriers that keep people stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. We can start by pointing out the harmful effects of minimum wages, occupational licensing and the like, but it goes much beyond this.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/591997017Making Congress Do Its JobMon, 18 Mar 2019 16:21:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/making-congress-do-its-job
00:51:48TheBobZadekShownoYou would think that politicians, once in power, would relish the opportunity to wield it. Yet Congress has increasingly abdicated its basic responsibility to make law.
Instead, it delegates "rule making" responsibility to administrative agencies - part of the executive branch. The rules these agencies come up with often have nothing to do with the intent of the laws Congress has passed, and overreach into the lives of private citizens with no accountability.
Against this anti-democratic process, the Congressional Review Act was signed into law in 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton. It requires administrative agencies to submit rule changes to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Congress doesn't have to vote, and they frequently don't, but they do have to be given the choice.
Sometimes, agencies have failed to submit rule changes or tried to circumvent the CRA because they find the requirements to be vague. Now, Democrats are even calling for the repeal of the CRA.
Congressional laziness is turning regulators into lawmakers, and giving the executive branch far more power than the Founders ever imagined. Frank Buckley calls the presidency an "elective monarchy." Philip Hamburger says that the power given to a runaway administrative state has morphed into the new "royal prerogative." I've covered the overreach of the administrative state nearly a dozen times on my show, including the "midnight regulations" passed into law by President Obama during the last week of his presidency.
Since 2017, Congress has begun to renew its constitutional vocation as the legislative branch and exercise its authority under the Congressional Review Act to strike down questionable rule changes.
Jonathan Wood, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, has been leading the charge in the courts to hold administrative agencies accountable. He recently won a victory on behalf of an Idaho ranch that was threatened by a controversial rule, which the Bureau of Land Management had not submitted to Congress for review.
The sweeping rule change would have altered the status of 70 million acres of federal lands to protect the greater sage grouse - a fascinating bird by all measures, but not an endangered species. This change would have threatened the livelihood of ranchers and cost billions to the economy.
But lest anyone criticize Wood for having it in for the poor Grouse, he has also written a report on how we could improve the Endangered Species Act in The Road to Recovery. Basically, Wood says we should be rewarding property owners who keep rare species alive on their property, not punishing them with regulations and command-and-control style preservation efforts that don't get results.
Fortunately, the court smacked down the administrative agency and required them to go through Congress to have the rule approved or rejected. One question still remains: will Congress do its job and vote on the rule, or will they continue abdicate power once again?
Jonathan will join me this Sunday (3/17) and take your calls on the show of ideas, not attitude.You would think that politicians, once in power, …You would think that politicians, once in power, would relish the opportunity to wield it. Yet Congress has increasingly abdicated its basic responsibility to make law.
Instead, it delegates "rule making" responsibility to administrative agencies - part of the executive branch. The rules these agencies come up with often have nothing to do with the intent of the laws Congress has passed, and overreach into the lives of private citizens with no accountability.
Against this anti-democratic process, the Congressional Review Act was signed into law in 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton. It requires administrative agencies to submit rule changes to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Congress doesn't have to vote, and they frequently don't, but they do have to be given the choice.
Sometimes, agencies have failed to submit rule changes or tried to circumvent the CRA because they find the requirements to be vague. Now, Democrats are even calling for the repeal of the CRA.
Congressional laziness is turning regulators into lawmakers, and giving the executive branch far more power than the Founders ever imagined. Frank Buckley calls the presidency an "elective monarchy." Philip Hamburger says that the power given to a runaway administrative state has morphed into the new "royal prerogative." I've covered the overreach of the administrative state nearly a dozen times on my show, including the "midnight regulations" passed into law by President Obama during the last week of his presidency.
Since 2017, Congress has begun to renew its constitutional vocation as the legislative branch and exercise its authority under the Congressional Review Act to strike down questionable rule changes.
Jonathan Wood, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, has been leading the charge in the courts to hold administrative agencies accountable. He recently won a victory on behalf of an Idaho ranch that was threatened by a controversial rule, which the Bureau of Land Management had not submitted to Congress for review.
The sweeping rule change would have altered the status of 70 million acres of federal lands to protect the greater sage grouse - a fascinating bird by all measures, but not an endangered species. This change would have threatened the livelihood of ranchers and cost billions to the economy.
But lest anyone criticize Wood for having it in for the poor Grouse, he has also written a report on how we could improve the Endangered Species Act in The Road to Recovery. Basically, Wood says we should be rewarding property owners who keep rare species alive on their property, not punishing them with regulations and command-and-control style preservation efforts that don't get results.
Fortunately, the court smacked down the administrative agency and required them to go through Congress to have the rule approved or rejected. One question still remains: will Congress do its job and vote on the rule, or will they continue abdicate power once again?
Jonathan will join me this Sunday (3/17) and take your calls on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/588516627The War on Sex WorkersMon, 11 Mar 2019 19:36:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-war-on-sex-workers
00:52:06TheBobZadekShownoIt seems like a rule that whenever government declares war on something, the problem gets worse. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an award-winning journalist and Reason editor who writes about how hysteria around human trafficking has created a "War on Sex Workers" to complement the failed Wars on Drugs, Poverty, and Terror. The co-founder of Feminists for Liberty, she belongs to the wave of feminism that believes women are capable of making their own choices, freely, without harassment.
Consider the unseen effects of criminalizing prostitution. Where it's illegal, women who would otherwise voluntarily become sex workers face the possibility of being abused by their clients with no recourse to law enforcement. Meanwhile, those who are being trafficked are forced to continue to meet inevitable black market demand.
Also consider that moral theologians from Augustine to Aquinas have supported legalized prostitution. Many countries operate regulated brothels to protect sex workers, but in our Puritan-founded country, we often fail to distinguish between the clear crime of sex trafficking and the victimless crime of voluntary prostitution. Historically, U.S. law enforcement has conflated the two in order to scare the public into supporting a ban on prostitution.It seems like a rule that whenever government dec…It seems like a rule that whenever government declares war on something, the problem gets worse. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is an award-winning journalist and Reason editor who writes about how hysteria around human trafficking has created a "War on Sex Workers" to complement the failed Wars on Drugs, Poverty, and Terror. The co-founder of Feminists for Liberty, she belongs to the wave of feminism that believes women are capable of making their own choices, freely, without harassment.
Consider the unseen effects of criminalizing prostitution. Where it's illegal, women who would otherwise voluntarily become sex workers face the possibility of being abused by their clients with no recourse to law enforcement. Meanwhile, those who are being trafficked are forced to continue to meet inevitable black market demand.
Also consider that moral theologians from Augustine to Aquinas have supported legalized prostitution. Many countries operate regulated brothels to protect sex workers, but in our Puritan-founded country, we often fail to distinguish between the clear crime of sex trafficking and the victimless crime of voluntary prostitution. Historically, U.S. law enforcement has conflated the two in order to scare the public into supporting a ban on prostitution.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/584418381Free Banking vs. Free MoneySun, 03 Mar 2019 19:48:31 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/free-banking-vs-free-money
00:51:06TheBobZadekShownoGeorge Selgin on the Mind-Bending Methods of Modern Monetary Theory:
You know you’re in trouble when your economic theories are so far to the left that Paul Krugman calls you out for neglecting the dangers of too much government spending.
Such is the dilemma of the Modern Monetary Theorists — best known for providing Bernie Sanders with the intellectual ammo for his big-spending agenda.
Modern Monetary Theory holds that we don’t need to worry about deficits, since government can always pay for its programs by making more money. When asked about the nightmares of Zimbabwe, the Weimar Republic and former Yugoslavia, the MMTers must admit that we need taxes to drain currency from the economy just before hyperinflation kicks in.George Selgin on the Mind-Bending Methods of Mode…George Selgin on the Mind-Bending Methods of Modern Monetary Theory:
You know you’re in trouble when your economic theories are so far to the left that Paul Krugman calls you out for neglecting the dangers of too much government spending.
Such is the dilemma of the Modern Monetary Theorists — best known for providing Bernie Sanders with the intellectual ammo for his big-spending agenda.
Modern Monetary Theory holds that we don’t need to worry about deficits, since government can always pay for its programs by making more money. When asked about the nightmares of Zimbabwe, the Weimar Republic and former Yugoslavia, the MMTers must admit that we need taxes to drain currency from the economy just before hyperinflation kicks in.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/581252139Here Comes the Storm: John McGinnis on the Threats to Classical LiberalismMon, 25 Feb 2019 20:13:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/here-comes-the-storm-john-mcginnis-on-the-threats-to-classical-liberalism
00:51:10TheBobZadekShownoI was careful not to be too dour in my "Progress Report for Liberty: 2018," noting that many subtle victories for liberty were achieved at the state level while the vitriol of national politics raged around us like a storm. Classical liberals should be cheerful about the ongoing reforms to our drug laws, the forward march of technology, and some notably positive developments in the Supreme Court (including the landmark decision of Janus v. AFSCME).
However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the "Accountable Capitalism Act." John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution (among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.
He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to "protect" Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.
2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism - Law & Liberty
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Classical Liberalism, Dear Colleague Letters, deregulation, Donald Trump…www.lawliberty.org
Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls "the Cult of the Presidency," and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.
McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President's recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude.I was careful not to be too dour in my "Progress …I was careful not to be too dour in my "Progress Report for Liberty: 2018," noting that many subtle victories for liberty were achieved at the state level while the vitriol of national politics raged around us like a storm. Classical liberals should be cheerful about the ongoing reforms to our drug laws, the forward march of technology, and some notably positive developments in the Supreme Court (including the landmark decision of Janus v. AFSCME).
However, I also noted the frightful prospect of a national political scene in which Elizabeth Warren scores points for proposing full-on socialism sneakily disguised as the "Accountable Capitalism Act." John O. McGinnis, the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law and author of Originalism And The Good Constitution (among other books), has an even more pessimistic take in his recap article, 2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism.
He notes, first, the ominous trend toward populism, and the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who promise to "protect" Americans from the very same forces of competition and free-market dynamism that have built America into the most prosperous nation on earth.
2018: A Gathering Storm for Classical Liberalism - Law & Liberty
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Classical Liberalism, Dear Colleague Letters, deregulation, Donald Trump…www.lawliberty.org
Second, although President Trump has ostensibly done some good for free markets, his persona has contributed to what Gene Healy calls "the Cult of the Presidency," and placed government right at the center of American social life. Based on these dual forces, McGinnis forecasts a gathering storm, in which aggrandizement of the state acts as the engine for a future collectivist revival.
McGinnis joined me this Sunday to discuss how the President's recent emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Your calls are welcome on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/577362414Not Enough Bricks: Marc Joffe on High Speed RailMon, 18 Feb 2019 15:57:29 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/not-enough-bricks-marc-joffe-on-high-speed-rail
00:51:33TheBobZadekShownoNot Enough Bricks: Marc Joffe on High Speed Rail by TheBobZadekShowNot Enough Bricks: Marc Joffe on High Speed Rail …Not Enough Bricks: Marc Joffe on High Speed Rail by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/573902916Founding HealerMon, 11 Feb 2019 23:24:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/founding-healer
00:52:03TheBobZadekShownoYou've probably never heard of Dr. Benjamin Rush - the only doctor to sign the Declaration. Although his star has faded over time, his influence over the better-known founders was second to none.
Today, Rush's name is often associated with his mistaken faith in bloodletting as the remedy for everything from mental illness to Yellow fever. Suffering from cramps? Try letting out a few ounces of blood. For persistent headaches, drain a whole pint. In the most extreme cases, like the mysterious and deadly virus that caused hemorrhaging and jaundice in many colonial cities in the decades following the American Revolution, Dr. Rush prescribed repeated and prolonged lettings of up to 75% of his patients' blood.
In hindsight, his treatments of the Yellow fever epidemic were ineffective (and in some cases made his patients worse), but Rush also intuited one of the root causes in the damp, filthy streets of the time. He thought the illness resulted from a toxic miasma emanating from the moisture, when in fact it was spread by mosquitos breeding in stagnant water pools. In any event, his tireless campaigning for improved sanitation and hygiene were a major part of the solution. This was just one of his many passionate causes, along with abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and education, and prison reform.
Like all of the Founding Fathers, Rush was a product of his time. He studied under the best and brightest, and tended to thousands of poor and sick with his burgeoning knowledge of medicine. It's easy to focus on his blunders, borne of the universal ignorance of medicine of his time, and look past his many humanitarian accomplishments. Harlow Unger, the prolific historian who has authored 10 biographies of founding fathers, has released the antidote to this one-sided treatment of a fascinating but little-known figure of American history in his new biography, Dr. Benjamin Rush: The Founding Father Who Healed a Wounded Nation.
Unger records Rush's close relationships with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, and tells how he healed a divided nation at many critical junctures. In Unger's history, Dr. Rush's pioneering social work lays a foundation for the fulfillment of the Constitution's promise of equal liberty for all. Dispelling the notion that history is all dates and names, Unger casts the story of Rush's life and times in such vivid detail that the reader feels as if he was amid the horrible outbreak of Yellow fever. This disease simultaneously devastated city populations along the Eastern Seaboard but (as we learn in Chapter 6) it may have also saved the fledgling union from a rebellion brewing in New York at the hands of a zealous French envoy to the U.S. named Edmund-Charles Genet.
Even the avid student of American history will learn much from Unger's book, and my recent conversation with him on the show of ideas, not attitude.You've probably never heard of Dr. Benjamin Rush …You've probably never heard of Dr. Benjamin Rush - the only doctor to sign the Declaration. Although his star has faded over time, his influence over the better-known founders was second to none.
Today, Rush's name is often associated with his mistaken faith in bloodletting as the remedy for everything from mental illness to Yellow fever. Suffering from cramps? Try letting out a few ounces of blood. For persistent headaches, drain a whole pint. In the most extreme cases, like the mysterious and deadly virus that caused hemorrhaging and jaundice in many colonial cities in the decades following the American Revolution, Dr. Rush prescribed repeated and prolonged lettings of up to 75% of his patients' blood.
In hindsight, his treatments of the Yellow fever epidemic were ineffective (and in some cases made his patients worse), but Rush also intuited one of the root causes in the damp, filthy streets of the time. He thought the illness resulted from a toxic miasma emanating from the moisture, when in fact it was spread by mosquitos breeding in stagnant water pools. In any event, his tireless campaigning for improved sanitation and hygiene were a major part of the solution. This was just one of his many passionate causes, along with abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and education, and prison reform.
Like all of the Founding Fathers, Rush was a product of his time. He studied under the best and brightest, and tended to thousands of poor and sick with his burgeoning knowledge of medicine. It's easy to focus on his blunders, borne of the universal ignorance of medicine of his time, and look past his many humanitarian accomplishments. Harlow Unger, the prolific historian who has authored 10 biographies of founding fathers, has released the antidote to this one-sided treatment of a fascinating but little-known figure of American history in his new biography, Dr. Benjamin Rush: The Founding Father Who Healed a Wounded Nation.
Unger records Rush's close relationships with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, and tells how he healed a divided nation at many critical junctures. In Unger's history, Dr. Rush's pioneering social work lays a foundation for the fulfillment of the Constitution's promise of equal liberty for all. Dispelling the notion that history is all dates and names, Unger casts the story of Rush's life and times in such vivid detail that the reader feels as if he was amid the horrible outbreak of Yellow fever. This disease simultaneously devastated city populations along the Eastern Seaboard but (as we learn in Chapter 6) it may have also saved the fledgling union from a rebellion brewing in New York at the hands of a zealous French envoy to the U.S. named Edmund-Charles Genet.
Even the avid student of American history will learn much from Unger's book, and my recent conversation with him on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/570002511Utopia UnmaskedMon, 04 Feb 2019 17:03:37 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/utopia-unmasked
00:52:14TheBobZadekShownoJust days ago, the European Union joined the U.S. and dozens of other countries in recognizing Juan Guiadó as the new interim President of Venezuela. While the ousting of Hugo Chavez’s strongman successor Nicolas Maduro is not a done deal, those who follow Venezuelan politics closely predict the imminent demise of the brutal socialist regime. Will this be the tipping point for one of the most repressive governments in the Western hemisphere? We may know soon.Just days ago, the European Union joined the U.S.…Just days ago, the European Union joined the U.S. and dozens of other countries in recognizing Juan Guiadó as the new interim President of Venezuela. While the ousting of Hugo Chavez’s strongman successor Nicolas Maduro is not a done deal, those who follow Venezuelan politics closely predict the imminent demise of the brutal socialist regime. Will this be the tipping point for one of the most repressive governments in the Western hemisphere? We may know soon.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/565742526Robby Soave on the Covington Catholic Media DebacleMon, 28 Jan 2019 06:50:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/robby-soave-on-the-covington-catholic-media-debacle
00:52:11TheBobZadekShownoThe brouhaha around the Covington Catholic kids seems to stem from the crowd dynamics and powerful visuals displayed at the Lincoln Memorial last weekend. On one side was a group of rowdy prep school boys-some wearing MAGA hats-fired up by professional antagonists on the other. It's really no wonder many recoiled at the image of a lone native American elder surrounded by jeering faces of "white privilege," even though later video revealed a much more nuanced picture.
Robby Soave (an editor of Reason Magazine) decided to actually watch the footage in its entirety to see what really happened. Soave has a keen eye for media hoaxes on politically charged issues-he was one of the first to express skepticism when Rolling Stone released the now-debunked UVA rape story. However, his critical eye toward sloppy journalism does not make him a knee-jerk contrarian. He has also pointed out that while we should not automatically believe everyone who claims victimhood, neither should we dismiss such claims lightly.The brouhaha around the Covington Catholic kids s…The brouhaha around the Covington Catholic kids seems to stem from the crowd dynamics and powerful visuals displayed at the Lincoln Memorial last weekend. On one side was a group of rowdy prep school boys-some wearing MAGA hats-fired up by professional antagonists on the other. It's really no wonder many recoiled at the image of a lone native American elder surrounded by jeering faces of "white privilege," even though later video revealed a much more nuanced picture.
Robby Soave (an editor of Reason Magazine) decided to actually watch the footage in its entirety to see what really happened. Soave has a keen eye for media hoaxes on politically charged issues-he was one of the first to express skepticism when Rolling Stone released the now-debunked UVA rape story. However, his critical eye toward sloppy journalism does not make him a knee-jerk contrarian. He has also pointed out that while we should not automatically believe everyone who claims victimhood, neither should we dismiss such claims lightly.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/563349321Jumping through Hoops: Morris Kleiner on Occupational LicensingWed, 23 Jan 2019 11:32:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jumping-through-hoops-morris-kleiner-on-occupational-licensing
00:53:14TheBobZadekShownoToday, the battle over occupational licensing is playing out in the states, with California among the strictest (nearly 1/5 of working Californians need a license for their jobs). Dr. Morris M. Kleiner, a professor and AFL-CIO Chair in Labor Policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, is a leading expert on licensing who studies the economic impact — seen and unseen — of forcing people to jump through hoops before practicing their chosen profession.Today, the battle over occupational licensing is …Today, the battle over occupational licensing is playing out in the states, with California among the strictest (nearly 1/5 of working Californians need a license for their jobs). Dr. Morris M. Kleiner, a professor and AFL-CIO Chair in Labor Policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, is a leading expert on licensing who studies the economic impact — seen and unseen — of forcing people to jump through hoops before practicing their chosen profession.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/558929754Erwan LeCorre on Free Movement in NatureMon, 14 Jan 2019 17:13:28 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/erwan-interview
00:49:14TheBobZadekShownoErwan LeCorre, founder of the MovNat system, spent his childhood exploring the French countryside. In young adulthood he scaled walls and practiced free running (aka “Parkour”) on the streets of Paris. Today he leads an international movement of natural movers reclaiming the techniques our ancestors used to survive in a much wilder world. MovNat is short for “natural movement” or “movement in nature” – a system of physical fitness designed to free people from the grind of modern sedentary life, with a government-prescribed regimen of boring, repetitive exercise at the gym.Erwan LeCorre, founder of the MovNat system, spen…Erwan LeCorre, founder of the MovNat system, spent his childhood exploring the French countryside. In young adulthood he scaled walls and practiced free running (aka “Parkour”) on the streets of Paris. Today he leads an international movement of natural movers reclaiming the techniques our ancestors used to survive in a much wilder world. MovNat is short for “natural movement” or “movement in nature” – a system of physical fitness designed to free people from the grind of modern sedentary life, with a government-prescribed regimen of boring, repetitive exercise at the gym.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/555437529Jennifer Kavanagh on Fact-Based PolicymakingMon, 07 Jan 2019 17:56:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jennifer-kavanagh-on-fact-based-policymaking
00:51:18TheBobZadekShownoHere’s a riddle for my listeners. Where would you turn if you wanted to find the most reliable information on Russian interference in American politics?
Do you go first to the billionaire-owned Washington Post or New York Times?
Perhaps you check your Twitter feed, browse YouTube, or scroll through Facebook, but if we’re to believe what we’re told, these site are infected with the very misinformation we’re trying to identify.
Would you rely on Google, which has been caught tampering with search results and developing a a censored search engine for the Chinese government?Here’s a riddle for my listeners. Where would you…Here’s a riddle for my listeners. Where would you turn if you wanted to find the most reliable information on Russian interference in American politics?
Do you go first to the billionaire-owned Washington Post or New York Times?
Perhaps you check your Twitter feed, browse YouTube, or scroll through Facebook, but if we’re to believe what we’re told, these site are infected with the very misinformation we’re trying to identify.
Would you rely on Google, which has been caught tampering with search results and developing a a censored search engine for the Chinese government?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/552297771Low Tweets and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment Debate Through the Lens of History and the ConstitutionMon, 31 Dec 2018 16:51:28 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/low-tweets-and-misdemeanors-the-impeachment-debate-through-the-lens-of-history-and-the-constitution
00:51:44TheBobZadekShownoCalls for impeachment are growing louder by the day. Billionaire Tom Steyer has garnered nearly 7 million signatures through the "Need to Impeach" campaign, and with Democrats about to retake a majority in the House, Rep. Maxine Waters is saying that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.
Much of this is partisan hype, and incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that she will rein in her colleagues' excesses. She recently commented that "when and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up." Allegations of campaign finance violations from Trump's hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels could fall into this category, but most experts see this is as a flimsy justification.
However, there may still be valid reasons to use what James Madison called "the indispensable remedy" against Trump's abuses of the executive office. Pelosi's comments stem from a common misconception about impeachment that it can only be used when the law has been broken, when in fact it can be used to address a much wider range of "conduct unbecoming" to the Presidency.
Gene Healy, a Vice President at the Cato Institute, is trying to dispel this and other myths about impeachment. Without making a specific case for impeaching Trump (with all the partisan pitfalls that would entail), Healy's latest white paper serves as a primer on the purpose, history, and scope of impeachment provisions. He concludes that the remedy is an important deterrent against the "incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate." He argues that impeachment has probably not been used often enough in the past 230 years when Presidents have exhibited these traits without technically breaking the law. Some of the Commander-in-Chief's tweets are a prime example.Calls for impeachment are growing louder by the d…Calls for impeachment are growing louder by the day. Billionaire Tom Steyer has garnered nearly 7 million signatures through the "Need to Impeach" campaign, and with Democrats about to retake a majority in the House, Rep. Maxine Waters is saying that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.
Much of this is partisan hype, and incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already signaled that she will rein in her colleagues' excesses. She recently commented that "when and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up." Allegations of campaign finance violations from Trump's hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels could fall into this category, but most experts see this is as a flimsy justification.
However, there may still be valid reasons to use what James Madison called "the indispensable remedy" against Trump's abuses of the executive office. Pelosi's comments stem from a common misconception about impeachment that it can only be used when the law has been broken, when in fact it can be used to address a much wider range of "conduct unbecoming" to the Presidency.
Gene Healy, a Vice President at the Cato Institute, is trying to dispel this and other myths about impeachment. Without making a specific case for impeaching Trump (with all the partisan pitfalls that would entail), Healy's latest white paper serves as a primer on the purpose, history, and scope of impeachment provisions. He concludes that the remedy is an important deterrent against the "incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate." He argues that impeachment has probably not been used often enough in the past 230 years when Presidents have exhibited these traits without technically breaking the law. Some of the Commander-in-Chief's tweets are a prime example.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/549551898Liberalism vs. NationalismMon, 24 Dec 2018 16:48:35 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/liberalism-vs-nationalism
00:51:18TheBobZadekShownoIn his new book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony makes an intellectually rigorous case for nationalism in general and for the specific case of his own country, Israel. Hazony, President of the Zionist Herzl Institute, argues that nationalism is the only stable alternative to a creeping "liberal internationalism," which he says is merely a modern version of the age-old concept of empire. Sometimes referred to as "globalism" or "transnationalism," this rules-based order seeks to secure global peace and grow the scope of its power by limiting the ability of nations to chart their own course.In his new book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram …In his new book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony makes an intellectually rigorous case for nationalism in general and for the specific case of his own country, Israel. Hazony, President of the Zionist Herzl Institute, argues that nationalism is the only stable alternative to a creeping "liberal internationalism," which he says is merely a modern version of the age-old concept of empire. Sometimes referred to as "globalism" or "transnationalism," this rules-based order seeks to secure global peace and grow the scope of its power by limiting the ability of nations to chart their own course.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/546321015Libertarian Minute - Are Trump's Tax Breaks Good Policy?Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:09:44 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-minute-are-trumps-tax-breaks-good-policy
00:01:01TheBobZadekShownoTrump's tax cuts hurt middle and upper class citizens of states with high state income taxes, because they eliminate the deduction that was previously there. Is this good policy? I say it is, because it levels the playing field and forces people to decide whether it's worth it to live in high-tax states, bearing the full brunt of the economic disincentive it poses.Trump's tax cuts hurt middle and upper class citi…Trump's tax cuts hurt middle and upper class citizens of states with high state income taxes, because they eliminate the deduction that was previously there. Is this good policy? I say it is, because it levels the playing field and forces people to decide whether it's worth it to live in high-tax states, bearing the full brunt of the economic disincentive it poses.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/546288075The Revenge of the Pen and PhoneMon, 17 Dec 2018 17:33:25 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-revenge-of-the-pen-and-phone
00:51:50TheBobZadekShownoTrump’s Proposed Executive Order to End Birth Right Citizenship is Unconstitutional, But Will that Stop It?Trump’s Proposed Executive Order to End Birth Rig…Trump’s Proposed Executive Order to End Birth Right Citizenship is Unconstitutional, But Will that Stop It?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/542726727Awaiting the Verdict in Timbs v. IndianaMon, 10 Dec 2018 17:37:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/awaiting-the-verdict-in-timbs-v-indiana
00:51:00TheBobZadekShownoIf we can say one thing definitively about government, we can say that it will not limit itself. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were the Founders’ response to the possibility that the new Republic they were creating would end up just as oppressive as the crown government they were overthrowing.
Were they successful?
This question has been the most consistent theme of my show for the past 10 years.
The topic of my show this Sunday gets to the core of this question.If we can say one thing definitively about govern…If we can say one thing definitively about government, we can say that it will not limit itself. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were the Founders’ response to the possibility that the new Republic they were creating would end up just as oppressive as the crown government they were overthrowing.
Were they successful?
This question has been the most consistent theme of my show for the past 10 years.
The topic of my show this Sunday gets to the core of this question.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/539184006Title IX's Transformation: R. Shep Melnick on the New Civil Rights DebateMon, 03 Dec 2018 16:05:26 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/title-ixs-transformation-r-shep-melnick-on-the-new-civil-rights-debate
00:51:06TheBobZadekShownoThere’s no better emblem of the complicated evolution of civil rights in America than the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Originally passed to ensure equal access to educational resources, Title IX reads as follows:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Although a libertarian might bristle at Title IX’s financial involvement in education, the statute otherwise seems innocuous — requiring nothing more than equal treatment for students, regardless of gender.
Since the 1970s, however, women have not only achieved parity with men in college admissions, they have surpassed men in graduation rates. Thus, the purpose of Title IX seems largely to have been achieved.
As the cultural landscape has changed, however, the focus of anti-discrimination efforts has also shifted. After omen could no longer claim discrimination at the admissions level, bureaucrats started to advocate in other areas like athletics, where men traditionally received more resources in accord with their greater interest in sports (especially at the elite level). Most people are familiar with Title IX’s equalization of athletics, but in terms of peak controversy, this was a passing phase in the law’s evolution.
Now, educational institutions have become the prime battleground in a larger culture war that includes the debates over sexual harassment, due process, “rape culture,” and transgender rights. In 2016, Republicans argued that Title IX has been perverted “by bureaucrats — and by the [then] President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people.”
How did the seemingly uncontroversial notion of non-discrimination has become such a lightning rod in the American culture war?
R. Shep Melnick is a professor of American politics at Boston College, where he focuses on the intersection of law and politics. Melnick argues that the current enforcement of Title IX has transformed the act from its original intention by politically motivated bureaucrats. He recently wrote The Transformation of Title IX [@The Brookings Institution Press (2018)] as a response to the partisan vortex that has swallowed rational discourse about the law. Shep joins the show this Sunday to discuss the problems of overly-zealous administrative lawmaking in the context of the Title IX debate.There’s no better emblem of the complicated evolu…There’s no better emblem of the complicated evolution of civil rights in America than the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Originally passed to ensure equal access to educational resources, Title IX reads as follows:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Although a libertarian might bristle at Title IX’s financial involvement in education, the statute otherwise seems innocuous — requiring nothing more than equal treatment for students, regardless of gender.
Since the 1970s, however, women have not only achieved parity with men in college admissions, they have surpassed men in graduation rates. Thus, the purpose of Title IX seems largely to have been achieved.
As the cultural landscape has changed, however, the focus of anti-discrimination efforts has also shifted. After omen could no longer claim discrimination at the admissions level, bureaucrats started to advocate in other areas like athletics, where men traditionally received more resources in accord with their greater interest in sports (especially at the elite level). Most people are familiar with Title IX’s equalization of athletics, but in terms of peak controversy, this was a passing phase in the law’s evolution.
Now, educational institutions have become the prime battleground in a larger culture war that includes the debates over sexual harassment, due process, “rape culture,” and transgender rights. In 2016, Republicans argued that Title IX has been perverted “by bureaucrats — and by the [then] President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people.”
How did the seemingly uncontroversial notion of non-discrimination has become such a lightning rod in the American culture war?
R. Shep Melnick is a professor of American politics at Boston College, where he focuses on the intersection of law and politics. Melnick argues that the current enforcement of Title IX has transformed the act from its original intention by politically motivated bureaucrats. He recently wrote The Transformation of Title IX [@The Brookings Institution Press (2018)] as a response to the partisan vortex that has swallowed rational discourse about the law. Shep joins the show this Sunday to discuss the problems of overly-zealous administrative lawmaking in the context of the Title IX debate.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/535737501The Libertarian Case for Redistricting ReformMon, 26 Nov 2018 15:56:04 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-libertarian-case-for-redistricting-reform
00:51:55TheBobZadekShownoEvery 10 years, congressional district boundaries must be redrawn based on incoming census data. It sounds simple enough, but like every politicized process, redistricting decisions are made to benefit an entrenched class of incumbents and the politically powerful.
The practice of “Gerrymandering” dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Gerry (pronounced “Gary”) Eldridge signed a law enabling his party to redraw district lines such that they would remain in the majority. Oddly-shaped districts, often resembling crooked and lanky salamanders, have been a fixture of American politics ever since.Every 10 years, congressional district boundaries…Every 10 years, congressional district boundaries must be redrawn based on incoming census data. It sounds simple enough, but like every politicized process, redistricting decisions are made to benefit an entrenched class of incumbents and the politically powerful.
The practice of “Gerrymandering” dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Governor Gerry (pronounced “Gary”) Eldridge signed a law enabling his party to redraw district lines such that they would remain in the majority. Oddly-shaped districts, often resembling crooked and lanky salamanders, have been a fixture of American politics ever since.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/532601553The Surprising Science of GMOsMon, 19 Nov 2018 22:36:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-surprising-science-of-gmos
00:52:16TheBobZadekShownoThe organic industry is taking advantage of the average American's scientific illiteracy, says Pacific Research Institute Fellow Henry I. MillerThe organic industry is taking advantage of the a…The organic industry is taking advantage of the average American's scientific illiteracy, says Pacific Research Institute Fellow Henry I. Millertag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/521444070Where Is Everyone Going? (Redux)Mon, 29 Oct 2018 06:35:22 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/where-is-everyone-going-redux
00:51:41TheBobZadekShownoChris Edwards Grades States on Tax Policy and Examines the Exodus from High-Tax to Low-Tax States
It’s often said that “money talks; BS walks,” but previous guests on my show have marshaled hard evidence that money walks, too. IRS data shows that it tends to walk from places with high taxes and poor quality governance to places with lower taxes and a better business climate.
Back in 2013, when I interviewed Travis Brown on his book How Money Walks, the caravan of Californians to lower-tax states had already begun. Hundreds of thousands of former residents of the Golden State have traded fools gold for silver — leaving for Nevada, not to mention Texas, Florida, and Oregon. This mass exodus of citizens is hitting California’s state budget especially hard, since our state relies on the income tax more than most.
Five years later, it’s time to revisit the subject with the Cato Institute’s director of tax policy studies, Chris Edwards, who has a new white paper out grading every state governor on fiscal performance. Governor Jerry Brown of California gets a “D.” I think this is generous, yet I still choose to live here. Perhaps my decision, and that of millions of others like me who have stuck around, explains why the government hasn’t been more responsive — yet.Chris Edwards Grades States on Tax Policy and Exa…Chris Edwards Grades States on Tax Policy and Examines the Exodus from High-Tax to Low-Tax States
It’s often said that “money talks; BS walks,” but previous guests on my show have marshaled hard evidence that money walks, too. IRS data shows that it tends to walk from places with high taxes and poor quality governance to places with lower taxes and a better business climate.
Back in 2013, when I interviewed Travis Brown on his book How Money Walks, the caravan of Californians to lower-tax states had already begun. Hundreds of thousands of former residents of the Golden State have traded fools gold for silver — leaving for Nevada, not to mention Texas, Florida, and Oregon. This mass exodus of citizens is hitting California’s state budget especially hard, since our state relies on the income tax more than most.
Five years later, it’s time to revisit the subject with the Cato Institute’s director of tax policy studies, Chris Edwards, who has a new white paper out grading every state governor on fiscal performance. Governor Jerry Brown of California gets a “D.” I think this is generous, yet I still choose to live here. Perhaps my decision, and that of millions of others like me who have stuck around, explains why the government hasn’t been more responsive — yet.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/518023911Bill Ottman on Minds.com and Social Media CensorshipMon, 22 Oct 2018 11:06:24 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bill-ottman-on-mindscom-and-social-media-censorship
00:52:00TheBobZadekShownoDuring the 1990s, a collaboration between Silicon Valley and the U.S. intelligence community was begun under the name of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS). The project funded dozens of top computer science programs at elite universities with the goal of identifying patterns in large amounts of information to track crime and terrorism. However, its intended capabilities went beyond crime hunting. One of these grants went to a Stanford research team that would eventually turn into a for-profit search engine, Google, Inc., which now uses its algorithms to detect all kinds of patterns of human behavior. Whether these algorithms are being used today for good or evil is the subject of this Sunday’s show.During the 1990s, a collaboration between Silicon…During the 1990s, a collaboration between Silicon Valley and the U.S. intelligence community was begun under the name of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS). The project funded dozens of top computer science programs at elite universities with the goal of identifying patterns in large amounts of information to track crime and terrorism. However, its intended capabilities went beyond crime hunting. One of these grants went to a Stanford research team that would eventually turn into a for-profit search engine, Google, Inc., which now uses its algorithms to detect all kinds of patterns of human behavior. Whether these algorithms are being used today for good or evil is the subject of this Sunday’s show.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/514984134Entrepreneurs, Outlaws, and the Right to Bear Arms – David Harsanyi on *First Freedom*Tue, 16 Oct 2018 04:07:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/entrepreneurs-outlaws-and-the-right-to-bear-arms-david-harsanyi-on-first-freedom
00:51:48TheBobZadekShownoAs the old adage adage goes, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” That may be literally true in places like Nazi Germany or communist regimes that have completely banned individuals from owning firearms, but in the U.S., most attempts to merely “control” gun ownership have resulted in far greater numbers of legal guns being purchased by the American public. Today there are more guns than people in the U.S.—by a lot—thanks in no small part by progressives’ efforts to restrict our Second Amendment rights.As the old adage adage goes, “If you outlaw guns,…As the old adage adage goes, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” That may be literally true in places like Nazi Germany or communist regimes that have completely banned individuals from owning firearms, but in the U.S., most attempts to merely “control” gun ownership have resulted in far greater numbers of legal guns being purchased by the American public. Today there are more guns than people in the U.S.—by a lot—thanks in no small part by progressives’ efforts to restrict our Second Amendment rights.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/511625574Stephen Moore on TrumponomicsTue, 09 Oct 2018 03:57:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/stephen-moore-on-trumponomics
00:47:30TheBobZadekShownoEarly on in the Trump administration, the President tweeted, “I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”
The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers unsuccessfully plead with him to focus solely on the former. After all, they argued, free trade is fair trade. It’s fair to consumers and producers, while tariffs, quotas and other protectionist policies promote unfair business practices. Fair trade is usually just a euphemism for protecting uncompetitive domestic industries from foreign competition. Reagan understood this, but he also had the political savvy to signal loyalty to American companies, so the hybrid “free and fair trade” mantra stuck. Read more here: https://medium.com/@rzadek/stephen-moore-on-trumponomics-7f4f6a14c7e8Early on in the Trump administration, the Preside…Early on in the Trump administration, the President tweeted, “I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”
The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers unsuccessfully plead with him to focus solely on the former. After all, they argued, free trade is fair trade. It’s fair to consumers and producers, while tariffs, quotas and other protectionist policies promote unfair business practices. Fair trade is usually just a euphemism for protecting uncompetitive domestic industries from foreign competition. Reagan understood this, but he also had the political savvy to signal loyalty to American companies, so the hybrid “free and fair trade” mantra stuck. Read more here: https://medium.com/@rzadek/stephen-moore-on-trumponomics-7f4f6a14c7e8tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/504437727Local Leviathan: Clint Bolick on Grassroots TyrannyMon, 24 Sep 2018 15:06:12 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/local-leviathan-clint-bolick-on-grassroots-tyranny
00:52:02TheBobZadekShownoIn designing the American Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to establish a balance of powers — not only among co-equal branches of federal government, but also among states, federal government, and the people themselves.
If the United States were a computer, then federalism would be its operating system. Extending the analogy, the most basic functions are performed by a “Central Governing Unit” (CGU) and strictly enumerated by Article I, Section VIII. The states were delegated the task of “programming” in the gaps — specialized “apps” to handle more localized issues. This design was supposed to serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny, although we’ve seen how the principles of federalism have been eroded by the commerce clause, and other broad powers usurped by federal government from the states.In designing the American Constitution, the Found…In designing the American Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to establish a balance of powers — not only among co-equal branches of federal government, but also among states, federal government, and the people themselves.
If the United States were a computer, then federalism would be its operating system. Extending the analogy, the most basic functions are performed by a “Central Governing Unit” (CGU) and strictly enumerated by Article I, Section VIII. The states were delegated the task of “programming” in the gaps — specialized “apps” to handle more localized issues. This design was supposed to serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny, although we’ve seen how the principles of federalism have been eroded by the commerce clause, and other broad powers usurped by federal government from the states.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/501164844FH Buckley on The Republican Workers PartyMon, 17 Sep 2018 14:57:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/fh-buckley-on-the-republican-workers-party
00:51:10TheBobZadekShownoAccording to F.H. Buckley — Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas — the surprise result of the 2016 election was a product of political paradox. An establishment candidate of a counterrevolutionary and aristocratic “New Class” was defeated by a revolutionary capitalist offering a path to social mobility. Forget labels like conservative and liberal — the real divide in American politics is between this New Class of privileged elites and the rest of America. In short, it was all about economic opportunity and jobs for Americans. Donald Trump saw this, while Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment did not.
Buckley, a Trump speechwriter and key transition advisor, introduced the idea of the New Class in his last book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It (2017). He explained this class as an outgrowth of the Hamiltonian vision of American greatness, which defended hereditary aristocracy against the Jeffersonian ideal of a natural aristocracy, in which anyone with talent and motivation could become successful.
Thankfully, the Jeffersonian aristocracy has been the norm for much of U.S. history. American’s risk-loving attitude, combined with low taxes and regulation, have created the most economically-mobile nation ever. However, a creeping “administrative state” and growing risk aversion among professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and the politically-connected have replaced American dynamism with an entrenched economic elite shielded from competition.
Buckley’s latest book, The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed (Encounter Books, 2018), takes up where his last book left off — discussing the implications of the growing gulf between the average voter and the New Class. He argues that conservatives and libertarians should embrace a truth about inequality championed (poorly) by modern liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders. The book is about how Trump bulldozed the tone-deaf Republican establishment and created a new movement that he called the Republican Workers Party:
Frank joins Bob live, this Sunday (9/16) from 8–9am PACIFIC, with his inside view on what “Make America Great Again” means. This includes a defense of nationalism rooted in a sense of fraternity with all fellow Americans. Whether you are riding the Trump train, remain a steadfast NeverTrumper, or are waiting to see what the President does next, The Republican Workers Party is required reading (or listening) for any student of politics.According to F.H. Buckley — Foundation Professor …According to F.H. Buckley — Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas — the surprise result of the 2016 election was a product of political paradox. An establishment candidate of a counterrevolutionary and aristocratic “New Class” was defeated by a revolutionary capitalist offering a path to social mobility. Forget labels like conservative and liberal — the real divide in American politics is between this New Class of privileged elites and the rest of America. In short, it was all about economic opportunity and jobs for Americans. Donald Trump saw this, while Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment did not.
Buckley, a Trump speechwriter and key transition advisor, introduced the idea of the New Class in his last book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It (2017). He explained this class as an outgrowth of the Hamiltonian vision of American greatness, which defended hereditary aristocracy against the Jeffersonian ideal of a natural aristocracy, in which anyone with talent and motivation could become successful.
Thankfully, the Jeffersonian aristocracy has been the norm for much of U.S. history. American’s risk-loving attitude, combined with low taxes and regulation, have created the most economically-mobile nation ever. However, a creeping “administrative state” and growing risk aversion among professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and the politically-connected have replaced American dynamism with an entrenched economic elite shielded from competition.
Buckley’s latest book, The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed (Encounter Books, 2018), takes up where his last book left off — discussing the implications of the growing gulf between the average voter and the New Class. He argues that conservatives and libertarians should embrace a truth about inequality championed (poorly) by modern liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders. The book is about how Trump bulldozed the tone-deaf Republican establishment and created a new movement that he called the Republican Workers Party:
Frank joins Bob live, this Sunday (9/16) from 8–9am PACIFIC, with his inside view on what “Make America Great Again” means. This includes a defense of nationalism rooted in a sense of fraternity with all fellow Americans. Whether you are riding the Trump train, remain a steadfast NeverTrumper, or are waiting to see what the President does next, The Republican Workers Party is required reading (or listening) for any student of politics.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/497918157Jonathan Haidt on *The Coddling of the American Mind*Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:39:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jonathan-haidt-on-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind
00:51:57TheBobZadekShownoA new vernacular has emerged on college campuses over the past several years — safe spaces, “microaggressions,” triggers warnings and so on. While conservatives may find these terms easy to mock, and many dismiss them as the grievances of a few spoiled children, professors from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about a pathological victimhood mentality that underlies their usage.
The first sign that things were getting bad was a 2015 article published in Vox titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me.” Next was the Halloween brouhaha at Yale, in which a professor was shouted down by a student mob after defending his wife’s email to the student body urging them to be less sensitive about costumes that “appropriate” the markers of certain cultures. Later came the mobs — often violent — calling for heads of figures like Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Milo Yiannopoulis for voicing controversial opinions.A new vernacular has emerged on college campuses …A new vernacular has emerged on college campuses over the past several years — safe spaces, “microaggressions,” triggers warnings and so on. While conservatives may find these terms easy to mock, and many dismiss them as the grievances of a few spoiled children, professors from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about a pathological victimhood mentality that underlies their usage.
The first sign that things were getting bad was a 2015 article published in Vox titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me.” Next was the Halloween brouhaha at Yale, in which a professor was shouted down by a student mob after defending his wife’s email to the student body urging them to be less sensitive about costumes that “appropriate” the markers of certain cultures. Later came the mobs — often violent — calling for heads of figures like Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Milo Yiannopoulis for voicing controversial opinions.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/494533413The Curious Case of the $32,000 CouchMon, 03 Sep 2018 11:11:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-curious-case-of-the-32000-couch
00:52:09TheBobZadekShownoIn 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Allen H. Loughry authored a book titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid And Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia.
Six years later, he was elected by the people of West Virginia as a justice on the same court, and on January 1, 2017, he became Chief Justice.
On June 20, 2018, Loughry was impeached by the West Virginia House for mind-boggling corruption of his own. Today, he is “living history” — facing impeachment and up to 390 years in prison.
However, this was only the beginning of the truly continuing history of political corruption in West Virginia’s Supreme Court. What began with a revelation of Loughry’s excessive spending on an office remodel — including the purchase of a $32,000 couch — implicated all five of the standing members of the Mountain State’s highest court. Now, three of them face impeachment trials, while the other two resigned to avoid the ugly proceedings into their potentially criminal “maladministration.”In 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Sup…In 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Allen H. Loughry authored a book titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid And Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia.
Six years later, he was elected by the people of West Virginia as a justice on the same court, and on January 1, 2017, he became Chief Justice.
On June 20, 2018, Loughry was impeached by the West Virginia House for mind-boggling corruption of his own. Today, he is “living history” — facing impeachment and up to 390 years in prison.
However, this was only the beginning of the truly continuing history of political corruption in West Virginia’s Supreme Court. What began with a revelation of Loughry’s excessive spending on an office remodel — including the purchase of a $32,000 couch — implicated all five of the standing members of the Mountain State’s highest court. Now, three of them face impeachment trials, while the other two resigned to avoid the ugly proceedings into their potentially criminal “maladministration.”tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/491322402Elizabeth Warren’s Socialist DogwhistleMon, 27 Aug 2018 14:48:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/elizabeth-warrens-socialist-dogwhistle
00:51:00TheBobZadekShownoJust a few weeks ago, the media was fawning over Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her youthful makeover of tired socialist ideas. Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal introducing a modest proposal to completely remake capitalism as we know it. Her Accountable Capitalism Act would create an "Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce," requiring any corporation with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a federal charter. Putting aside the fact that Warren is likely using this to position herself as the hard-left favorite for the 2020 presidential election, it's worth examining what such a policy would actually mean for businesses and working people in the United States. A full analysis would require both a legal scholar and an economist. Professor Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution and NYU's School of Law joined The Bob Zadek Show on 8/26/18 to explain how Elizabeth Warren's Surreptitious Socialism threatens the foundations of our (mostly) free economy.Just a few weeks ago, the media was fawning over …Just a few weeks ago, the media was fawning over Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her youthful makeover of tired socialist ideas. Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren penned an essay in the Wall Street Journal introducing a modest proposal to completely remake capitalism as we know it. Her Accountable Capitalism Act would create an "Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce," requiring any corporation with revenue over $1 billion to obtain a federal charter. Putting aside the fact that Warren is likely using this to position herself as the hard-left favorite for the 2020 presidential election, it's worth examining what such a policy would actually mean for businesses and working people in the United States. A full analysis would require both a legal scholar and an economist. Professor Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution and NYU's School of Law joined The Bob Zadek Show on 8/26/18 to explain how Elizabeth Warren's Surreptitious Socialism threatens the foundations of our (mostly) free economy.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/488240346Socialism: Not Even OnceMon, 20 Aug 2018 20:11:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/socialism-not-even-once
00:00:59TheBobZadekShowno"Free" healthcare, college education, etc. is never free. Someone always pays. Bob muses on the reason socialism always fails, with recourse to Adam Smith's famous line about the benevolence (or lack thereof) of the butcher and baker."Free" healthcare, college education, etc. is nev…"Free" healthcare, college education, etc. is never free. Someone always pays. Bob muses on the reason socialism always fails, with recourse to Adam Smith's famous line about the benevolence (or lack thereof) of the butcher and baker.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/488207922A Libertarian Vision of #aNewNYMon, 20 Aug 2018 18:56:51 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/a-libertarian-vision-of-anewny
00:51:51TheBobZadekShownoLarry Sharpe has a message for the caravan of ex-New Yorkers heading to Florida and elsewhere in escape of high taxes, bad schools, and a broken legal system. There is another option besides “Exit” and “Loyalty.” Sharpe is giving millions of New Yorkers a voice that many of them previously never knew they had. It is the principled voice of liberty, rejecting tribal allegiance to the two parties in favor of a practical live and let live ethos.Larry Sharpe has a message for the caravan of ex-…Larry Sharpe has a message for the caravan of ex-New Yorkers heading to Florida and elsewhere in escape of high taxes, bad schools, and a broken legal system. There is another option besides “Exit” and “Loyalty.” Sharpe is giving millions of New Yorkers a voice that many of them previously never knew they had. It is the principled voice of liberty, rejecting tribal allegiance to the two parties in favor of a practical live and let live ethos.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/485541204The Other War on DrugsTue, 14 Aug 2018 18:44:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-other-war-on-drugs
00:52:37TheBobZadekShownoLibertarians have been stalwart opponents of the War on Drugs since its inception — a position which has brought them ridicule and scorn until relatively recently when the tide of popular opinion began to shift. Now, we see grassroots support for dozens of reforms across the states. However, the Federal Government clings to prohibition and refuses to admit that it has always been losing the war, and is now losing public approval.
Are people waking up to the principle of self-ownership, or is the change based on a simple recognition that the War on Drugs has failed? It costs too much to enforce and generally harms the very people it is intended to help.
Meanwhile, another War on Drugs receives less attention in the media, but the consequences and futility are no less grave. While Drug Enforcement Agency raids may ruin lives with spectacular flair and speed, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) system of tight regulatory controls on pharmaceuticals is a silent killer.
Read more: https://medium.com/@rzadek/the-other-war-on-drugs-14588f66bfaeLibertarians have been stalwart opponents of the …Libertarians have been stalwart opponents of the War on Drugs since its inception — a position which has brought them ridicule and scorn until relatively recently when the tide of popular opinion began to shift. Now, we see grassroots support for dozens of reforms across the states. However, the Federal Government clings to prohibition and refuses to admit that it has always been losing the war, and is now losing public approval.
Are people waking up to the principle of self-ownership, or is the change based on a simple recognition that the War on Drugs has failed? It costs too much to enforce and generally harms the very people it is intended to help.
Meanwhile, another War on Drugs receives less attention in the media, but the consequences and futility are no less grave. While Drug Enforcement Agency raids may ruin lives with spectacular flair and speed, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) system of tight regulatory controls on pharmaceuticals is a silent killer.
Read more: https://medium.com/@rzadek/the-other-war-on-drugs-14588f66bfaetag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/481901418How to Spot Tabloid Climate ScienceMon, 06 Aug 2018 16:24:10 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-to-spot-tabloid-climate-science
00:51:51TheBobZadekShownoH. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute on the Corruption of Science and the Changing Tide in Environmental Policy.H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute on…H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute on the Corruption of Science and the Changing Tide in Environmental Policy.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/478684221How Bail Traps the Poor in JailMon, 30 Jul 2018 14:29:34 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-bail-traps-the-poor-in-jail
00:51:33TheBobZadekShownoThe August/September 2018 Reason Magazine cover story features an issue of bi-partisan interest - the injustice of the cash bail system, which coerces poor defendants into guilty pleas. For those who can pay, bail means avoiding jail before they even get a trial. For those who can't pay, it often means lost jobs, and mega-hassles, even if they end up being found innocent. Does this represent a violation of the great American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty?The August/September 2018 Reason Magazine cover s…The August/September 2018 Reason Magazine cover story features an issue of bi-partisan interest - the injustice of the cash bail system, which coerces poor defendants into guilty pleas. For those who can pay, bail means avoiding jail before they even get a trial. For those who can't pay, it often means lost jobs, and mega-hassles, even if they end up being found innocent. Does this represent a violation of the great American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/475619538California Discovers FederalismMon, 23 Jul 2018 16:33:40 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/california-discovers-federalism
00:51:41TheBobZadekShownoIt’s been called “federalism 2.0” — a move by states to buck the central government and try out their own policies in areas of the environment, immigration, drug policy, and criminal justice reform. California (for better or for worse) has been leading the charge on climate change issues, setting the pace for national vehicle emissions standards with its own stricter standards. But more recently, states have been particularly innovative on immigration, given the host of problems that stem from the Federal government’s failure to implement a comprehensive solution.
Joe Mathews, a syndicated columnist and California editor for Zocalo Public Square, came up with a unique legal proposal during the debate over Deferred Action (read: deportation) for Childhood Arrivals: an alternative “California resident” status. While not quite U.S. citizenship (which California can’t grant), residency would be a step towards integration for immigrant children, raised in California, whose national identity and true citizenship differ. Maybe, Mathews suggests, the best way to resolve the discrepancy is to make “Californian” into something more like a nationality — a legal relationship between non-citizen residents and state government. This would imply greater sovereignty for California and, in turn, for other states seeking to reclaim powers delegated to them by the 10th Amendment. Mathew specifically evoked the idea of federalism — referring to it as a “great American tradition” — much as Bob has been doing on this show for the past 10 years.
Is it Legal?
While the Constitution gives the Federal government jurisdiction over enforcing national immigration standards, there is no explicit prohibition on states taking action. As David Davenport of the Hoover Institution notes:
“Federalism incorporates the idea that the federal government is not the only player in our constitutional republic, because state and local governments also serve important roles. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically reminds us that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
With Republicans in charge of the White House, both houses of Congress and arguably the Supreme Court, Democrats are rediscovering states’ rights and local government powers, as the out-of-power party in Washington often does. And as usual, California is leading the way in flexing state and local power, notably:
On immigration — The nearly 20 sanctuary cities and counties in California refuse to support the enforcement of Washington’s immigration laws, charting their own course at the risk of some federal funding.”
Mathews joins the show live, this Sunday, from 8–9am PACIFIC, to unpack his proposal, and explain how it would work. He and Bob will discuss the broader failures of our immigration system, and work through the logistics of a more federalist approach if the Golden State were to lead the way.It’s been called “federalism 2.0” — a move by sta…It’s been called “federalism 2.0” — a move by states to buck the central government and try out their own policies in areas of the environment, immigration, drug policy, and criminal justice reform. California (for better or for worse) has been leading the charge on climate change issues, setting the pace for national vehicle emissions standards with its own stricter standards. But more recently, states have been particularly innovative on immigration, given the host of problems that stem from the Federal government’s failure to implement a comprehensive solution.
Joe Mathews, a syndicated columnist and California editor for Zocalo Public Square, came up with a unique legal proposal during the debate over Deferred Action (read: deportation) for Childhood Arrivals: an alternative “California resident” status. While not quite U.S. citizenship (which California can’t grant), residency would be a step towards integration for immigrant children, raised in California, whose national identity and true citizenship differ. Maybe, Mathews suggests, the best way to resolve the discrepancy is to make “Californian” into something more like a nationality — a legal relationship between non-citizen residents and state government. This would imply greater sovereignty for California and, in turn, for other states seeking to reclaim powers delegated to them by the 10th Amendment. Mathew specifically evoked the idea of federalism — referring to it as a “great American tradition” — much as Bob has been doing on this show for the past 10 years.
Is it Legal?
While the Constitution gives the Federal government jurisdiction over enforcing national immigration standards, there is no explicit prohibition on states taking action. As David Davenport of the Hoover Institution notes:
“Federalism incorporates the idea that the federal government is not the only player in our constitutional republic, because state and local governments also serve important roles. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically reminds us that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
With Republicans in charge of the White House, both houses of Congress and arguably the Supreme Court, Democrats are rediscovering states’ rights and local government powers, as the out-of-power party in Washington often does. And as usual, California is leading the way in flexing state and local power, notably:
On immigration — The nearly 20 sanctuary cities and counties in California refuse to support the enforcement of Washington’s immigration laws, charting their own course at the risk of some federal funding.”
Mathews joins the show live, this Sunday, from 8–9am PACIFIC, to unpack his proposal, and explain how it would work. He and Bob will discuss the broader failures of our immigration system, and work through the logistics of a more federalist approach if the Golden State were to lead the way.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/472384491Can California's Endangered Species Survive U.S. Fish & Wildlife Policy?Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:36:29 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/can-californias-endangered-species-survive-us-fish-wildlife-policy
00:52:09TheBobZadekShownoWhen the population of a tiny fish called the Delta smelt started to dwindle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife kicked into high gear to save them from going to extinct. They used their authority to divert federal water from the smelt’s habitat in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta — away from farming and other habitats in the San Joaquin Valley. Endangered species have no way to communicate to the regulators charged with keeping them alive, but if they could, they might echo Ronald Reagan in saying:
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”When the population of a tiny fish called the Del…When the population of a tiny fish called the Delta smelt started to dwindle, U.S. Fish & Wildlife kicked into high gear to save them from going to extinct. They used their authority to divert federal water from the smelt’s habitat in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta — away from farming and other habitats in the San Joaquin Valley. Endangered species have no way to communicate to the regulators charged with keeping them alive, but if they could, they might echo Ronald Reagan in saying:
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/469374894The Two Faces of Janus v. AFSCMEMon, 09 Jul 2018 16:50:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-two-faces-of-janus-v-afscme
00:51:49TheBobZadekShownoProgressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it’s a disaster for unions and working Americans; libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh says it’s a bad decision, but won’t change much.Progressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it’s a…Progressive podcaster Jonathan Tasini says it’s a disaster for unions and working Americans; libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh says it’s a bad decision, but won’t change much.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/466319601The End of Nation-States? Mark Lutter on Free CitiesMon, 02 Jul 2018 15:04:51 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-end-of-nation-states-mark-lutter-on-free-cities
00:48:19TheBobZadekShownoEver since Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis, men have dreamed of using science to advance empirical knowledge and bring relief to the human condition. But in the area of law and governance in particular, some countries have tried to apply rational principles (i.e., Marx’s supposedly scientific laws of history) with disastrous consequences. The common law tradition — with its protections of private property and individual liberty, plus stable rule of law — has proved the best system so far, despite being an emergent, system rather than the creation of an all-wise leader or bureaucracy.Ever since Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis, men …Ever since Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis, men have dreamed of using science to advance empirical knowledge and bring relief to the human condition. But in the area of law and governance in particular, some countries have tried to apply rational principles (i.e., Marx’s supposedly scientific laws of history) with disastrous consequences. The common law tradition — with its protections of private property and individual liberty, plus stable rule of law — has proved the best system so far, despite being an emergent, system rather than the creation of an all-wise leader or bureaucracy.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/463223457Empower the People, Let the States Innovate, Neuter WashingtonMon, 25 Jun 2018 15:05:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/let-the-states-innovate-neuter-washington
00:00:59TheBobZadekShownoOur country's founding principles prevent me from further supporting any candidate for Federal office. Washington's constitutional mission has changed from protecting my rights to simply protecting the growth of its own power. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I cannot further support Federal candidates since they cannot individually or collectively change Washington.
I can leverage contributions by supporting freedom-oriented think tanks and rights-defending public interest law firms, which effectively influence Washington and voters, and I can support certain candidates for state office. States are incubators of democracy. Citizens vote with their feet to smaller government and more personal freedom. States are re-acquiring that constitutional power: drug policy, school choice, eminent domain, and immigration, for example, while Washington has become more remote and aloof than King George was several centuries ago.
Empower the states and empower the people, neuter Washington.
Get Bob’s book, Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KN75VXD/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1Our country's founding principles prevent me from…Our country's founding principles prevent me from further supporting any candidate for Federal office. Washington's constitutional mission has changed from protecting my rights to simply protecting the growth of its own power. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I cannot further support Federal candidates since they cannot individually or collectively change Washington.
I can leverage contributions by supporting freedom-oriented think tanks and rights-defending public interest law firms, which effectively influence Washington and voters, and I can support certain candidates for state office. States are incubators of democracy. Citizens vote with their feet to smaller government and more personal freedom. States are re-acquiring that constitutional power: drug policy, school choice, eminent domain, and immigration, for example, while Washington has become more remote and aloof than King George was several centuries ago.
Empower the states and empower the people, neuter Washington.
Get Bob’s book, Power to the States: How Federalism 2.0 Can Make America Governable Again:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KN75VXD/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/463208550Non-Aggression in a Nuclear EraMon, 25 Jun 2018 14:25:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/non-aggression-in-a-nuclear-era
00:52:09TheBobZadekShowno“I don’t get no respect.” — Rodney Dangerfield
If we trust the media, the world seems to be constantly on the brink of nuclear destruction. Since World War II, global powers have escalated the arms race to the point “Mutually Assured Destruction,” in which it would be suicidal madness for any country to initiate a nuclear attack. Some say that this logical conclusion of nuclear war has held major conflicts at bay, but the world may be getting more dangerous as nations with less to lose unlock the technology to annihilate whole cities with a single bomb.
Hawkish conservatives love to talk about “getting tough” with countries like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear programs threaten global stability. But while it’s tempting to toughen economic sanctions or plot a pre-emptive strike to enact favorable “regime change,” this strategy does not work according to John Glaser, the Cato Institute’s associate director of foreign policy. Glaser joins the show to break down the latest in the summits and negotiations with North Korea, and to provide some foundations for a more libertarian foreign policy in the current climate.“I don’t get no respect.” — Rodney Dangerfield
If…“I don’t get no respect.” — Rodney Dangerfield
If we trust the media, the world seems to be constantly on the brink of nuclear destruction. Since World War II, global powers have escalated the arms race to the point “Mutually Assured Destruction,” in which it would be suicidal madness for any country to initiate a nuclear attack. Some say that this logical conclusion of nuclear war has held major conflicts at bay, but the world may be getting more dangerous as nations with less to lose unlock the technology to annihilate whole cities with a single bomb.
Hawkish conservatives love to talk about “getting tough” with countries like North Korea and Iran, whose nuclear programs threaten global stability. But while it’s tempting to toughen economic sanctions or plot a pre-emptive strike to enact favorable “regime change,” this strategy does not work according to John Glaser, the Cato Institute’s associate director of foreign policy. Glaser joins the show to break down the latest in the summits and negotiations with North Korea, and to provide some foundations for a more libertarian foreign policy in the current climate.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/460007985A Bottom-Up Plan to Reshape the Political LandscapeMon, 18 Jun 2018 15:53:54 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/a-bottom-up-plan-to-reshape-the-political-landscape
00:51:51TheBobZadekShownoMost people rationally assess that their votes and actions can’t influence the Federal behemoth. Cliff Maloney Jr., President of YAL, grasped this reality and changed the organization’s strategy to give student activists a genuine sense of purpose and accomplishment. The 900+ YAL chapters across the country are already seeing results from their campaign to #MakeLibertyWin in the states, via Operation Win at the Door — starting at the most local level possible.
He joins Bob this Sunday (6/17) to talk about what’s happening on college campuses across the country, and how YAL’s new program is influencing national politics from the bottom up.Most people rationally assess that their votes an…Most people rationally assess that their votes and actions can’t influence the Federal behemoth. Cliff Maloney Jr., President of YAL, grasped this reality and changed the organization’s strategy to give student activists a genuine sense of purpose and accomplishment. The 900+ YAL chapters across the country are already seeing results from their campaign to #MakeLibertyWin in the states, via Operation Win at the Door — starting at the most local level possible.
He joins Bob this Sunday (6/17) to talk about what’s happening on college campuses across the country, and how YAL’s new program is influencing national politics from the bottom up.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/457056945Thaddeus Russell on Renegades vs. ConformistsMon, 11 Jun 2018 22:41:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/thaddeus-russell-on-renegades-vs-conformists
00:52:47TheBobZadekShownoThaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of American history in his 2010 book, showing that it was the rogues and renegades — prostitutes, drunkards, and laggards — who often pioneered freedoms we now take for granted, such as a women’s ability to walk somewhere unaccompanied, or wear makeup. To be sure, Russell is an equal-opportunity offender — dethroning sacred cows on both the left and the right. He joins the show of ideas, not attitude, this Sunday, to share his experience working at an Ivy-league university as a heterodox historian.Thaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of Ameri…Thaddeus Russell exploded the naive view of American history in his 2010 book, showing that it was the rogues and renegades — prostitutes, drunkards, and laggards — who often pioneered freedoms we now take for granted, such as a women’s ability to walk somewhere unaccompanied, or wear makeup. To be sure, Russell is an equal-opportunity offender — dethroning sacred cows on both the left and the right. He joins the show of ideas, not attitude, this Sunday, to share his experience working at an Ivy-league university as a heterodox historian.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/453589326Joel Engel on *Scorched Worth: A True Story of Destruction, Deceit, and Government Corruption*Mon, 04 Jun 2018 14:24:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/joel-engel-on-scorched-worth-a-true-story-of-destruction-deceit-and-government-corruption
00:51:48TheBobZadekShownoHollywood loves to dramatize stories involving corporate bad guys – lawyered up multinational behemoths who plunder the land just to make a buck. Bestselling author and screenwriter Joel Engel could have taken this well-worn path, and written another clear-cut good guys and bad guys story. However, his latest book – Scorched Worth: A True Story of Destruction, Deceit, and Government Corruption – flips the script. Engel tells of a 65,000-acre forest fire in the Sierra Nevadas in 2007 that led to the aggressive prosecution of Sierra Pacific Industries. After botching the investigation protocol, the Federal government accused SPI of starting the fire based on flimsy evidence. Through his painstaking journalistic probe, Engel uncovered malfeasance by government at each step, from the failure to detect the fire to the biased findings that implicated the lumber giant. It would have been easy to jump on the bandwagon in scapegoating SPI and its ultra-wealthy founder, Archie “Red” Emmerson. Instead, he reveals a portrait of a company that carefully followed the law while wisely stewarding national resources, and a government bureaucracy that didn’t know when to quit.Hollywood loves to dramatize stories involving co…Hollywood loves to dramatize stories involving corporate bad guys – lawyered up multinational behemoths who plunder the land just to make a buck. Bestselling author and screenwriter Joel Engel could have taken this well-worn path, and written another clear-cut good guys and bad guys story. However, his latest book – Scorched Worth: A True Story of Destruction, Deceit, and Government Corruption – flips the script. Engel tells of a 65,000-acre forest fire in the Sierra Nevadas in 2007 that led to the aggressive prosecution of Sierra Pacific Industries. After botching the investigation protocol, the Federal government accused SPI of starting the fire based on flimsy evidence. Through his painstaking journalistic probe, Engel uncovered malfeasance by government at each step, from the failure to detect the fire to the biased findings that implicated the lumber giant. It would have been easy to jump on the bandwagon in scapegoating SPI and its ultra-wealthy founder, Archie “Red” Emmerson. Instead, he reveals a portrait of a company that carefully followed the law while wisely stewarding national resources, and a government bureaucracy that didn’t know when to quit.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/447137679How to Stay Sane in a Statist WorldMon, 21 May 2018 16:07:09 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-to-stay-sane-in-a-statist-world-1
00:51:51TheBobZadekShownoA popular libertarian slogan (most recently adopted by the Free State Project in New Hampshire) aims for "liberty in our lifetimes." But since freedom is so subjective anyway, perhaps what we should really be striving for is cognitive liberty: our personal well-being, and the freedom from emotional disturbances.
Dr. Michael Edelstein returns to the show with Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, to discuss cognitive liberty – freeing one's self from the mental traps that act as obstacles to a life of joy.A popular libertarian slogan (most recently adopt…A popular libertarian slogan (most recently adopted by the Free State Project in New Hampshire) aims for "liberty in our lifetimes." But since freedom is so subjective anyway, perhaps what we should really be striving for is cognitive liberty: our personal well-being, and the freedom from emotional disturbances.
Dr. Michael Edelstein returns to the show with Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, to discuss cognitive liberty – freeing one's self from the mental traps that act as obstacles to a life of joy.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/443969100Bryan Caplan's case against Higher EducationMon, 14 May 2018 18:06:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bryan-caplans-case-against-higher-education
00:51:55TheBobZadekShownoEach year, the government spends $80 billion dollars on subsidies to higher education, making it more attractive for high school students to spend four of their most critical years studying topics only marginally more useful than underwater basket weaving. Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University, admits to being an Ivory Tower academic (he jokes that he's now in the 41st grade) and that most of his students won't ever use the material he teaches. He also thinks we spend way too much for "products" like his. This honest insiders perspective only lends more credibility to his new book, The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. However, Caplan acknowledges that he’s fighting an uphill battle against rational self-interest. For most kids, college still pays, and employers still want that piece of paper certifying that its recipient is “system-approved” — i.e., smart enough to play the game, follow directions, and tolerate substantial boredom in the pursuit of abstract goals. While other economists might be afraid to voice such a contrarian opinion, Caplan has never shied away from unpopular opinion (ah, tenure).
Know any high school students considering an alternative to the elaborate and expensive system of hoops we call the University? Get them to tune in, too, and share the link to our Medium article.Each year, the government spends $80 billion doll…Each year, the government spends $80 billion dollars on subsidies to higher education, making it more attractive for high school students to spend four of their most critical years studying topics only marginally more useful than underwater basket weaving. Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University, admits to being an Ivory Tower academic (he jokes that he's now in the 41st grade) and that most of his students won't ever use the material he teaches. He also thinks we spend way too much for "products" like his. This honest insiders perspective only lends more credibility to his new book, The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. However, Caplan acknowledges that he’s fighting an uphill battle against rational self-interest. For most kids, college still pays, and employers still want that piece of paper certifying that its recipient is “system-approved” — i.e., smart enough to play the game, follow directions, and tolerate substantial boredom in the pursuit of abstract goals. While other economists might be afraid to voice such a contrarian opinion, Caplan has never shied away from unpopular opinion (ah, tenure).
Know any high school students considering an alternative to the elaborate and expensive system of hoops we call the University? Get them to tune in, too, and share the link to our Medium article.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/440692872“Breakfast is Good For You” and Other Dangerous Government-Sponsored MythsMon, 07 May 2018 17:02:06 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/breakfast-is-good-for-you-and-other-dangerous-government-sponsored-myths
00:52:01TheBobZadekShownoIn the future, barring dramatic changes in what we eat, there will only be two different kinds of people: diabetics and pre-diabetics.
Terence Kealey is a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham, who was already a skeptic of government-funded research when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2010. 15 years earlier, he had published a book called The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, arguing that government-funded science does not constitute a “public good.” Rather, science flourishes under a free market, and government tends to skew research in favor of special interests. Upon receiving his diagnosis, he doubled down on his mission to dispel bad science funded by the government, specifically targeting the nutritional guidelines that led him to develop his condition. His most recent book, Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal: Why You Should Ditch Your Morning Meal for Health and Wellbeing, which applies his insights as a biochemist and philosopher of science to show just how badly the government errs when it gives incorrect advice based on inconclusive science.In the future, barring dramatic changes in what w…In the future, barring dramatic changes in what we eat, there will only be two different kinds of people: diabetics and pre-diabetics.
Terence Kealey is a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham, who was already a skeptic of government-funded research when he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2010. 15 years earlier, he had published a book called The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, arguing that government-funded science does not constitute a “public good.” Rather, science flourishes under a free market, and government tends to skew research in favor of special interests. Upon receiving his diagnosis, he doubled down on his mission to dispel bad science funded by the government, specifically targeting the nutritional guidelines that led him to develop his condition. His most recent book, Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal: Why You Should Ditch Your Morning Meal for Health and Wellbeing, which applies his insights as a biochemist and philosopher of science to show just how badly the government errs when it gives incorrect advice based on inconclusive science.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/436162248David Boaz on the Libertarian EthosFri, 27 Apr 2018 21:12:59 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/david-boaz-on-the-libertarian-ethos
00:51:59TheBobZadekShownoBerkeley, California—The home of the “Free Speech Movement” became a center of attention last year when writer and professional provacateur Milo Yiannopoulos ignited protests on campus – testing the city’s tolerance of viewpoints outside the progressive orthodoxy. Libertarians, for the most part, have found common cause with these speakers in opposing the new threats to free speech. As Anthony Fisher of Reason has pointed out, groups like Antifa have resorted to violence against innocent parties, and labeled anyone to the left of Bernie Sanders as “fascist.” Unfortunately, the left-wing reaction has caused some libertarians to over-sympathize with members of the so-called “alt-right,” whose aims are also opposed to a free society. David Boaz is Executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of The Libertarian Mind, The Libertarian Reader, and Libertarianism: A Primer. He visited Berkeley in February to give a warning to students who might be seduced by the alt-right, and to explain why the reactionary philosophy is incompatible with libertarianism. While libertarians have reason to be frustrated by the status quo, there is a danger of this anger congealing into hatred. “Ultimately,” Boaz says, “libertarianism is about peaceful cooperation―markets, civil society, global trade, peace, so it just isn’t angry enough for some people.” He joins Bob to make clear how alien the alt-right’s thinking is to a truly libertarian mind.Berkeley, California—The home of the “Free Speech…Berkeley, California—The home of the “Free Speech Movement” became a center of attention last year when writer and professional provacateur Milo Yiannopoulos ignited protests on campus – testing the city’s tolerance of viewpoints outside the progressive orthodoxy. Libertarians, for the most part, have found common cause with these speakers in opposing the new threats to free speech. As Anthony Fisher of Reason has pointed out, groups like Antifa have resorted to violence against innocent parties, and labeled anyone to the left of Bernie Sanders as “fascist.” Unfortunately, the left-wing reaction has caused some libertarians to over-sympathize with members of the so-called “alt-right,” whose aims are also opposed to a free society. David Boaz is Executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of The Libertarian Mind, The Libertarian Reader, and Libertarianism: A Primer. He visited Berkeley in February to give a warning to students who might be seduced by the alt-right, and to explain why the reactionary philosophy is incompatible with libertarianism. While libertarians have reason to be frustrated by the status quo, there is a danger of this anger congealing into hatred. “Ultimately,” Boaz says, “libertarianism is about peaceful cooperation―markets, civil society, global trade, peace, so it just isn’t angry enough for some people.” He joins Bob to make clear how alien the alt-right’s thinking is to a truly libertarian mind.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/435229542Bob talks Russia Investigation & Self-Driving Cars on Life!Line w/ Craig RobertsWed, 25 Apr 2018 23:35:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bob-talks-russia-investigation-self-driving-cars-on-lifeline-w-craig-roberts
00:45:25TheBobZadekShownoBob talks Russia Investigation & Self-Driving Cars on Life!Line w/ Craig Roberts, on the Answer's sister station, KFAX, 1100AM.Bob talks Russia Investigation & Self-Driving Car…Bob talks Russia Investigation & Self-Driving Cars on Life!Line w/ Craig Roberts, on the Answer's sister station, KFAX, 1100AM.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/430414368As Tax Day Approaches, So Does Tax Freedom Day®Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:46:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/as-tax-day-approaches-so-does-tax-freedom-day
00:51:45TheBobZadekShownoApril 17 is tax day – that morose time of year when procrastinators and libertarians alike must swallow their grudge against the government and write it a big check. Just two days later, however, taxpayers can take consolation in another holiday: Tax Freedom Day® – the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Based on the calculations of the nonprofit tax watchdog The Tax Foundation, this year’s Tax Freedom Day (April 19) falls three days earlier than last year. But before you get ready to celebrate, keep in mind that the government is spending more in 2018 than ever before. If we continue on our current path, Tax Freedom Day will come later and later in the year. Joe Bishop-Henchman, Executive Vice President of The Tax Foundation, joins the show to get both practical and philosophical about the tax system. Tax policy combines all of the essential questions about fairness versus freedom, along with technical economic questions of tax incidence (who pays?) and deadweight loss (how much value gets lost in the shuffle?). Bob and Joe will discuss what changed because of the recent Tax Cuts and the Jobs Act, and do a round-up of state-based reforms. Tune in to hear the silver lining on the cloud that is tax day.April 17 is tax day – that morose time of year wh…April 17 is tax day – that morose time of year when procrastinators and libertarians alike must swallow their grudge against the government and write it a big check. Just two days later, however, taxpayers can take consolation in another holiday: Tax Freedom Day® – the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Based on the calculations of the nonprofit tax watchdog The Tax Foundation, this year’s Tax Freedom Day (April 19) falls three days earlier than last year. But before you get ready to celebrate, keep in mind that the government is spending more in 2018 than ever before. If we continue on our current path, Tax Freedom Day will come later and later in the year. Joe Bishop-Henchman, Executive Vice President of The Tax Foundation, joins the show to get both practical and philosophical about the tax system. Tax policy combines all of the essential questions about fairness versus freedom, along with technical economic questions of tax incidence (who pays?) and deadweight loss (how much value gets lost in the shuffle?). Bob and Joe will discuss what changed because of the recent Tax Cuts and the Jobs Act, and do a round-up of state-based reforms. Tune in to hear the silver lining on the cloud that is tax day.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/427071993ICE in the Age of TrumpMon, 09 Apr 2018 11:18:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ice-in-the-age-of-trump
00:52:05TheBobZadekShownoCalifornia businesses find themselves wedged between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the Federal Government's recent crackdown on undocumented workers – a head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says his agency plans to quadruple the number of unannounced visits to work sites, and a recent raid in the Bay Area shows he's serious. The hard place is California's law criminalizing cooperation with ICE when no warrant is presented. State and local leaders are determined to defend their sanctuary status, including Oakland Mayor Libby Shaaf, who announced the upcoming raid on Twitter. This led President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to retaliate with a lawsuit against the state's directives opposing the Federal Government. Of course, illegal immigrants themselves are left in the ultimate predicament by our schizophrenic politics. Republicans are telling them to "Get in Line! And Stay Out!", while Democrats seem content to keep them as second-class citizens in legal limbo between naturalization and deportation. Mitch Jeserich hosts the award-winning Letters & Politics show on KPFA radio, where he frequently hosts discussions on immigration from a left-leaning perspective. He joins Bob to debate the philosophical differences between libertarians and left-liberals when it comes to immigration, and the constitutionality of the Trump administration's challenge to California's sanctuary state status.California businesses find themselves wedged betw…California businesses find themselves wedged between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the Federal Government's recent crackdown on undocumented workers – a head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says his agency plans to quadruple the number of unannounced visits to work sites, and a recent raid in the Bay Area shows he's serious. The hard place is California's law criminalizing cooperation with ICE when no warrant is presented. State and local leaders are determined to defend their sanctuary status, including Oakland Mayor Libby Shaaf, who announced the upcoming raid on Twitter. This led President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to retaliate with a lawsuit against the state's directives opposing the Federal Government. Of course, illegal immigrants themselves are left in the ultimate predicament by our schizophrenic politics. Republicans are telling them to "Get in Line! And Stay Out!", while Democrats seem content to keep them as second-class citizens in legal limbo between naturalization and deportation. Mitch Jeserich hosts the award-winning Letters & Politics show on KPFA radio, where he frequently hosts discussions on immigration from a left-leaning perspective. He joins Bob to debate the philosophical differences between libertarians and left-liberals when it comes to immigration, and the constitutionality of the Trump administration's challenge to California's sanctuary state status.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/420201528Cheap Hawks, Not Cheap TalkMon, 26 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/cheap-hawks-not-cheap-talk
00:51:20TheBobZadekShownoOn Wednesday night, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $1.3 trillion dollar "omnibus bill" to avert a government shutdown. In case you're wondering what $1.3 trillion gets you in 2018, the answer is "five more months of continued operation of the Federal Government." Of that budget, $700 billion goes toward the military. If you assume that government can only be either large and effective or small and ineffective, you might wrongly conclude that we need big spending for public goods like national defense. After all, without a strong military, what is to prevent predators from plundering our productive economy? However, Jonathan Bydlak of the Institute for Spending Reform thinks it's wrong to equate big spending with strength and safety. As a self-proclaimed "cheap hawk," he says we can have a strong military without bankrupting the country. He quotes Michael Mullen – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – who said, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” Mullen believes out-of-control spending actually weakens the military and the resources it uses. Bydlak has started an initiative called "Guide for a Strong America" under the banner of the Institute for Spending Reform, which lays out concrete cuts to the Pentagon's budget that would make us safer. Tune in to hear how D.C.'s culture of spending – which includes GOP leaders – is setting the U.S. up for something worse than a government shutdown.On Wednesday night, the Republican-led House of R…On Wednesday night, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $1.3 trillion dollar "omnibus bill" to avert a government shutdown. In case you're wondering what $1.3 trillion gets you in 2018, the answer is "five more months of continued operation of the Federal Government." Of that budget, $700 billion goes toward the military. If you assume that government can only be either large and effective or small and ineffective, you might wrongly conclude that we need big spending for public goods like national defense. After all, without a strong military, what is to prevent predators from plundering our productive economy? However, Jonathan Bydlak of the Institute for Spending Reform thinks it's wrong to equate big spending with strength and safety. As a self-proclaimed "cheap hawk," he says we can have a strong military without bankrupting the country. He quotes Michael Mullen – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – who said, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” Mullen believes out-of-control spending actually weakens the military and the resources it uses. Bydlak has started an initiative called "Guide for a Strong America" under the banner of the Institute for Spending Reform, which lays out concrete cuts to the Pentagon's budget that would make us safer. Tune in to hear how D.C.'s culture of spending – which includes GOP leaders – is setting the U.S. up for something worse than a government shutdown.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/416075508Dr. Jeff Singer on OpiophobiaMon, 19 Mar 2018 17:20:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/dr-jeff-singer-on-opiophobia
00:52:13TheBobZadekShownoDr. Jeffrey A. Singer – aka the “Doctor For Liberty” – recently wrote a piece for Cato @ Liberty in which he challenged the mainstream media narrative about the abuse of prescription pain pills. The Trump administration is cracking down on doctors and requiring them to jump through hoops in order to give their patients necessary medication. The War on Drugs remains what it has always been – a war on people. So much unnecessary pain will be caused in the name of staunching the opioid epidemic, which turns out not to be an opioid epidemic after all. The substances change (today, for example, we have the highly dangerous and addictive Fentanyl being illegally smuggled from Chinese factories) but the game stays the same. Prohibition policies hurt the very people they are supposed to help, and experienced professionals (i.e., doctors) are prevented from using their best judgment. Singer says we don’t need more funding for the epidemic, we need more rationality and calm assessment of the data, which suggests that restricting supply of prescription opioids is pushing people to black markets and creating more addicts, not fewer. Instead of facts, we get hysteria. Dr. Singer returns to the show to discuss America’s longest war for the full hour with Bob.Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer – aka the “Doctor For Liber…Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer – aka the “Doctor For Liberty” – recently wrote a piece for Cato @ Liberty in which he challenged the mainstream media narrative about the abuse of prescription pain pills. The Trump administration is cracking down on doctors and requiring them to jump through hoops in order to give their patients necessary medication. The War on Drugs remains what it has always been – a war on people. So much unnecessary pain will be caused in the name of staunching the opioid epidemic, which turns out not to be an opioid epidemic after all. The substances change (today, for example, we have the highly dangerous and addictive Fentanyl being illegally smuggled from Chinese factories) but the game stays the same. Prohibition policies hurt the very people they are supposed to help, and experienced professionals (i.e., doctors) are prevented from using their best judgment. Singer says we don’t need more funding for the epidemic, we need more rationality and calm assessment of the data, which suggests that restricting supply of prescription opioids is pushing people to black markets and creating more addicts, not fewer. Instead of facts, we get hysteria. Dr. Singer returns to the show to discuss America’s longest war for the full hour with Bob.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/412554501An Intellectual Discussion of Sexual Harassment with Richard EpsteinMon, 12 Mar 2018 16:14:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/an-intellectual-discussion-of-sexual-harassment-with-richard-epstein
00:52:03TheBobZadekShownoEach week, the list of celebrities accused of sexual assault seems to grow longer. Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, and now Harvey Weinstein are just a few of the mighty who have fallen from grace. But while none of these three men has yet to be officially convicted of a crime, the market's retribution has been swift. O'Reilly lost his show, Weinstein lost his job, and Cosby lost his reputation as the benign, sweater-wearing father figure that America so loved. On college campuses, criminal proceedings are being jettisoned (for different reasons) in favor of Title IX discrimination hearings, which lower the standard for guilt to a "preponderance of evidence." Reason Magazine's Robby Soave has documented numerous instances in which campus tribunals have functioned as kangaroo courts – ruining the lives of innocent men and women under the banner of civil rights.
Of course, it goes without saying that sexual harassment deserves to be treated seriously. Richard Epstein returns to the show to bring his full intellect to bear on this hairy subject. He and Bob will discuss the threat to free speech posed by the Federal Government's broad guidelines on harassment issued to universities under Title IX legislation. They seek to define appropriate remedies for sexual harassment, and the market's role in punishing bad behavior. Bob will ask what culpability the enablers of sexual harassment possess for saying nothing when "everyone knew" about certain individuals' abusive behavior. Finally, Epstein will explain how anti-discrimination legislation often creates new forms of discrimination. It's time for an adult conversation about sexual harassment.Each week, the list of celebrities accused of sex…Each week, the list of celebrities accused of sexual assault seems to grow longer. Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, and now Harvey Weinstein are just a few of the mighty who have fallen from grace. But while none of these three men has yet to be officially convicted of a crime, the market's retribution has been swift. O'Reilly lost his show, Weinstein lost his job, and Cosby lost his reputation as the benign, sweater-wearing father figure that America so loved. On college campuses, criminal proceedings are being jettisoned (for different reasons) in favor of Title IX discrimination hearings, which lower the standard for guilt to a "preponderance of evidence." Reason Magazine's Robby Soave has documented numerous instances in which campus tribunals have functioned as kangaroo courts – ruining the lives of innocent men and women under the banner of civil rights.
Of course, it goes without saying that sexual harassment deserves to be treated seriously. Richard Epstein returns to the show to bring his full intellect to bear on this hairy subject. He and Bob will discuss the threat to free speech posed by the Federal Government's broad guidelines on harassment issued to universities under Title IX legislation. They seek to define appropriate remedies for sexual harassment, and the market's role in punishing bad behavior. Bob will ask what culpability the enablers of sexual harassment possess for saying nothing when "everyone knew" about certain individuals' abusive behavior. Finally, Epstein will explain how anti-discrimination legislation often creates new forms of discrimination. It's time for an adult conversation about sexual harassment.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/409111602Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire on Getting Government Out of MarriageMon, 05 Mar 2018 19:17:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/steve-horwitz-and-sarah-skwire-on-getting-government-out-of-marriage
00:51:14TheBobZadekShownoDefenders of the free market are often caricatured as calculating, utility maximizers, whose only concern is the efficient allocation of resources. Any attempt to analyze a “market for love” with intersecting supply and demand curves is bound to fall flat. However, that doesn’t mean libertarian economic thought has no implications for how the institution of marriage could be improved. Before their wedding, one year ago, Sarah Skwire and Steve Horwitz had both independently written about the libertarian answer to the hot-button question of same-sex marriage. Horwitz, a libertarian economics at Ball State University, has applied an “Austrian perspective” to explain how the evolution of the market, and the relatively recent development of “marrying for love,” is changing the way people might want to structure the marriage contract. Skwire, a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, has studied “What Marriage Was Like before Bureaucracy,” and found – incredibly – that it worked just fine. They join Bob on their one-year anniversary to discuss a Reason article they co-authored last November (Getting the State Out of Marriage) in which they advocate replacing the one-size-fits-all contract with a private system adapted to changing norms around marriage and family life. They argue that the idea of a traditional marriage system is flawed, and make the case that government’s intrusion into the institution – particularly the special benefits based on marriage status – has created unnecessary controversy.Defenders of the free market are often caricature…Defenders of the free market are often caricatured as calculating, utility maximizers, whose only concern is the efficient allocation of resources. Any attempt to analyze a “market for love” with intersecting supply and demand curves is bound to fall flat. However, that doesn’t mean libertarian economic thought has no implications for how the institution of marriage could be improved. Before their wedding, one year ago, Sarah Skwire and Steve Horwitz had both independently written about the libertarian answer to the hot-button question of same-sex marriage. Horwitz, a libertarian economics at Ball State University, has applied an “Austrian perspective” to explain how the evolution of the market, and the relatively recent development of “marrying for love,” is changing the way people might want to structure the marriage contract. Skwire, a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, has studied “What Marriage Was Like before Bureaucracy,” and found – incredibly – that it worked just fine. They join Bob on their one-year anniversary to discuss a Reason article they co-authored last November (Getting the State Out of Marriage) in which they advocate replacing the one-size-fits-all contract with a private system adapted to changing norms around marriage and family life. They argue that the idea of a traditional marriage system is flawed, and make the case that government’s intrusion into the institution – particularly the special benefits based on marriage status – has created unnecessary controversy.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/405527658What Would Milton Say? Scott Sumner on Market MonetarismMon, 26 Feb 2018 18:15:57 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/what-would-milton-say-scott-sumner-on-market-monetarism
00:52:52TheBobZadekShownoThere are several well-documented cases of collective memory lapses, in which masses of people have become convinced of something that never actually happened. Contrary to popular belief, the queen in Snow White never says "Mirror, mirror on the wall," the Monopoly man doesn't wear a monocle, Nelson Mandela did not die in prison, and the Federal Reserve did not ease monetary policy leading up to the Great Recession. Beginning in 2009, a professor named Scott Sumner became perturbed by an apparent false memory of the events around the housing crash and subsequent downturn. He started a blog called *The Money Illusion,* which noted certain parallels between the insufficient action taken by the Fed during the Great Depression, and the timid policy pursued under Chairman Ben Bernanke. Bernanke – himself an economic historian par excellence – gave a speech on Milton Friedman's 90th birthday apologizing to him for making the Great Depression far deeper than it needed to be. "You're right," he said, "we caused the Great Depression. We're sorry. But thanks to you we'll never do it again." Yet just a few years later, Bernanke stood idly by as nominal spending plunged, and inflation fell temporarily to negative levels. The failure to act more aggressively stood in direct opposition to Friedman's recommendations for Japan, which ushered in a whole decade of slow growth because of overly tight money. Somehow, the economics profession seemed to forget all about Bernanke's apology (and Friedman's recommendations), acting as if fiscal policy and other regulations were the only way to avoid another recession.
Professor Sumner joins Bob's producer Charlie Deist to conclude a three-part series on monetary policy and business cycle theory. Sumner is neither a Keynesian nor an Austrian economist, but rather positions himself within Milton Friedman's monetarist tradition. While Friedman advocated a simple rule for targeting the money supply to stabilize prices, Sumner has adapted monetarist ideas for the 21st century, arguing for a "nominal GDP target" (real output plus inflation) that would automatically adjust based on the market's forecast.There are several well-documented cases of collec…There are several well-documented cases of collective memory lapses, in which masses of people have become convinced of something that never actually happened. Contrary to popular belief, the queen in Snow White never says "Mirror, mirror on the wall," the Monopoly man doesn't wear a monocle, Nelson Mandela did not die in prison, and the Federal Reserve did not ease monetary policy leading up to the Great Recession. Beginning in 2009, a professor named Scott Sumner became perturbed by an apparent false memory of the events around the housing crash and subsequent downturn. He started a blog called *The Money Illusion,* which noted certain parallels between the insufficient action taken by the Fed during the Great Depression, and the timid policy pursued under Chairman Ben Bernanke. Bernanke – himself an economic historian par excellence – gave a speech on Milton Friedman's 90th birthday apologizing to him for making the Great Depression far deeper than it needed to be. "You're right," he said, "we caused the Great Depression. We're sorry. But thanks to you we'll never do it again." Yet just a few years later, Bernanke stood idly by as nominal spending plunged, and inflation fell temporarily to negative levels. The failure to act more aggressively stood in direct opposition to Friedman's recommendations for Japan, which ushered in a whole decade of slow growth because of overly tight money. Somehow, the economics profession seemed to forget all about Bernanke's apology (and Friedman's recommendations), acting as if fiscal policy and other regulations were the only way to avoid another recession.
Professor Sumner joins Bob's producer Charlie Deist to conclude a three-part series on monetary policy and business cycle theory. Sumner is neither a Keynesian nor an Austrian economist, but rather positions himself within Milton Friedman's monetarist tradition. While Friedman advocated a simple rule for targeting the money supply to stabilize prices, Sumner has adapted monetarist ideas for the 21st century, arguing for a "nominal GDP target" (real output plus inflation) that would automatically adjust based on the market's forecast.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/398516754A Sunday Morning Chat with the "World's Worst Mom"Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:24:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/a-sunday-morning-chat-with-the-worlds-worst-mom
00:52:02TheBobZadekShownoWe moderns take pride in the fact that we no longer burn witches. But can we be so certain that we’ve emerged from the "Dark Ages" to a new enlightened state of mind? Lenore Skenazy sees some of the markings of a modern-day witch hunt in sex-offender registry laws. There’s no doubt that we need mechanisms to protect potential victims of sexual violence, but Skenazy argues that these registries enact draconian yet ineffective punishments – often branding relatively innocent minors for life, lumping them in with some of the most heinous criminals. It takes bravery to advance this view, given the unpopularity of the cause (don’t expect a March for Sex Offenders’ Rights anytime soon). But demonization hasn’t stopped Skenazy from making common-sense arguments – with a heavy dose of humor – about this and other modern-day witch hunts. She was labeled the “World’s Worst Mom” for allowing her 9-year-old son to ride the NYC subway and writing about it in the New York Post. The controversy led her to start a now-global movement of “Free Range Kids.” She now frequently speaks and writes to debunk myths like the ubiquitous kidnapper, and the incurable sex offender (the most common age of people on the sex offender registry is 14 years old). Skenazy’s latest project encourages parents and schools to grant kids more autonomy – to let go, and Let Grow – as such experiences, and the small risks involved, are essential to learning. She joins Bob – fresh off a Cato Institute symposium, titled, “You May Be a Sex Offender if…” – to restore sanity to the conversation around sexual harassment, sex offenders, and over-sensitivity on college campuses.We moderns take pride in the fact that we no long…We moderns take pride in the fact that we no longer burn witches. But can we be so certain that we’ve emerged from the "Dark Ages" to a new enlightened state of mind? Lenore Skenazy sees some of the markings of a modern-day witch hunt in sex-offender registry laws. There’s no doubt that we need mechanisms to protect potential victims of sexual violence, but Skenazy argues that these registries enact draconian yet ineffective punishments – often branding relatively innocent minors for life, lumping them in with some of the most heinous criminals. It takes bravery to advance this view, given the unpopularity of the cause (don’t expect a March for Sex Offenders’ Rights anytime soon). But demonization hasn’t stopped Skenazy from making common-sense arguments – with a heavy dose of humor – about this and other modern-day witch hunts. She was labeled the “World’s Worst Mom” for allowing her 9-year-old son to ride the NYC subway and writing about it in the New York Post. The controversy led her to start a now-global movement of “Free Range Kids.” She now frequently speaks and writes to debunk myths like the ubiquitous kidnapper, and the incurable sex offender (the most common age of people on the sex offender registry is 14 years old). Skenazy’s latest project encourages parents and schools to grant kids more autonomy – to let go, and Let Grow – as such experiences, and the small risks involved, are essential to learning. She joins Bob – fresh off a Cato Institute symposium, titled, “You May Be a Sex Offender if…” – to restore sanity to the conversation around sexual harassment, sex offenders, and over-sensitivity on college campuses.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/394927095Let's Talk About California's ""High-Speed"" RailMon, 05 Feb 2018 18:45:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/lets-talk-about-californias-high-speed-rail
00:52:07TheBobZadekShownoCalifornia has problems. After years of drought, last year’s deluge caused the Oroville Dam to burst, costing nearly $1 billion. Meanwhile, the welfare rolls are swelling, and the millionaires on whom the state depends for its tax revenues are leaving the state in droves. This would seem to be a time to get back to basics, but proponents of the high-speed rail are plowing ahead with the project despite delays, lawsuits, and cost overruns. The original bond measure — Proposition 1A — passed in 2008, with a slim majority of Californians voting for a state of the art, 220mph, electrified train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It was to be partly funded by taxpayer money, and partly by private investment. Now, the project has morphed into a patchwork of conventional and high-speed rail, and encountered serious issues at the earliest, and allegedly easiest, stages of construction. There are now big questions for those private investors, who were supposed to emerge to foot the remainder of the bill for what is no longer the high-speed project it was supposed to be. For these reasons and more, one of the proposition’s original most ardent advocates — Judge Quentin Kopp — has turned on the idea. In fact, he now says it’s “almost a crime.” Kopp is a retired judge and former Chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority. He served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and in the California State Senate and joins the show to explain how the high-speed rail has gotten so far off track.California has problems. After years of drought, …California has problems. After years of drought, last year’s deluge caused the Oroville Dam to burst, costing nearly $1 billion. Meanwhile, the welfare rolls are swelling, and the millionaires on whom the state depends for its tax revenues are leaving the state in droves. This would seem to be a time to get back to basics, but proponents of the high-speed rail are plowing ahead with the project despite delays, lawsuits, and cost overruns. The original bond measure — Proposition 1A — passed in 2008, with a slim majority of Californians voting for a state of the art, 220mph, electrified train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It was to be partly funded by taxpayer money, and partly by private investment. Now, the project has morphed into a patchwork of conventional and high-speed rail, and encountered serious issues at the earliest, and allegedly easiest, stages of construction. There are now big questions for those private investors, who were supposed to emerge to foot the remainder of the bill for what is no longer the high-speed project it was supposed to be. For these reasons and more, one of the proposition’s original most ardent advocates — Judge Quentin Kopp — has turned on the idea. In fact, he now says it’s “almost a crime.” Kopp is a retired judge and former Chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority. He served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and in the California State Senate and joins the show to explain how the high-speed rail has gotten so far off track.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/394002999Jefferson State of MindSun, 04 Feb 2018 00:24:58 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jefferson-state-of-mind
00:16:29TheBobZadekShownoJohn Bechtol talks about overcoming the victim mentality and taking responsibility for the failure of the California Republican Party.
John is a retired contractor, yachtsman, and graduate of UC Davis, who was raised in Sonoma County, where he still resides. This interview was conducted at the St. Francis Yacht Club on Wednesday, January 31, as part of an on-going investigation of the political formations surrounding the proposed state of New California, and the “Jefferson state of mind,” that spawned it.John Bechtol talks about overcoming the victim me…John Bechtol talks about overcoming the victim mentality and taking responsibility for the failure of the California Republican Party.
John is a retired contractor, yachtsman, and graduate of UC Davis, who was raised in Sonoma County, where he still resides. This interview was conducted at the St. Francis Yacht Club on Wednesday, January 31, as part of an on-going investigation of the political formations surrounding the proposed state of New California, and the “Jefferson state of mind,” that spawned it.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/384013193The Basics of Bitcoin & Blockchain with Stan LarimerMon, 15 Jan 2018 18:04:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-basics-of-bitcoin-blockchain-with-stan-larimer
00:51:28TheBobZadekShownoDoes Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and inflation by central banks as we know it, or does it represent something larger and less predictable?Does Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and…Does Bitcoin signal the end of money-printing and inflation by central banks as we know it, or does it represent something larger and less predictable?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/380821301Tom Reed On The Proposed State Of New CaliforniaTue, 09 Jan 2018 01:19:37 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/tom-reed-on-the-proposed-state-of-new-california
00:35:16TheBobZadekShownoHopland resident and long-time Californian Tom Reed think counties should be the basic unit of the State of California. However, since California operates under "Dillon's Rule," which grants state preeminence over local governments, he is advocating for the creation of a "New California," comprising northern and inland counties, outside of the major metropolitan areas.
On January 15, his group will be publishing a Declaration of Independence -- not from the United States, but from the increasingly dysfunctional State of California. Learn more about Tom and his efforts at https://newcaliforniastate.com/.Hopland resident and long-time Californian Tom Re…Hopland resident and long-time Californian Tom Reed think counties should be the basic unit of the State of California. However, since California operates under "Dillon's Rule," which grants state preeminence over local governments, he is advocating for the creation of a "New California," comprising northern and inland counties, outside of the major metropolitan areas.
On January 15, his group will be publishing a Declaration of Independence -- not from the United States, but from the increasingly dysfunctional State of California. Learn more about Tom and his efforts at https://newcaliforniastate.com/.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/380612066Canada Needs Plasma. Should the Pay Donors to Get it?Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:11:34 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/canada-needs-plasma-should-the-pay-donors-to-get-it
00:52:16TheBobZadekShownoMedical advances like organ transplants and blood plasma transfusions have created new dilemmas for healthcare workers, economists, and ethicists alike. If you bring up the idea of compensating donors of bodily tissues and fluids at a dinner party, you’re likely to evoke reactions of disgust (and fewer future dinner party invitations). However, given the importance of these procedures and shortage of donors, the conversation must be had somewhere. That’s why we reserved a full hour to discuss the topic with business ethicist Peter Jaworski of Georgetown University. Jaworski advocates the legalization of blood plasma sales in his native country of Canada. Our neighbors to the north currently import the life-saving serum from the U.S., where “donations” are incentivized with small cash payments. Peter recently penned an op-ed for Canada’s National Post titled, “Canada needs blood plasma. We should pay donors to get it.” He brings a nuanced understanding of the opposing arguments, along with a convincing rebuttal that might even persuade your friends at the next cocktail party of the merits of such incentives for plasma donation (although we aren’t responsible for any friends lost over the issue). Why are some goods, namely those that come from the human body, thought to be off-limits for sale? Tune in to hear the case for legalizing the repugnant.Medical advances like organ transplants and blood…Medical advances like organ transplants and blood plasma transfusions have created new dilemmas for healthcare workers, economists, and ethicists alike. If you bring up the idea of compensating donors of bodily tissues and fluids at a dinner party, you’re likely to evoke reactions of disgust (and fewer future dinner party invitations). However, given the importance of these procedures and shortage of donors, the conversation must be had somewhere. That’s why we reserved a full hour to discuss the topic with business ethicist Peter Jaworski of Georgetown University. Jaworski advocates the legalization of blood plasma sales in his native country of Canada. Our neighbors to the north currently import the life-saving serum from the U.S., where “donations” are incentivized with small cash payments. Peter recently penned an op-ed for Canada’s National Post titled, “Canada needs blood plasma. We should pay donors to get it.” He brings a nuanced understanding of the opposing arguments, along with a convincing rebuttal that might even persuade your friends at the next cocktail party of the merits of such incentives for plasma donation (although we aren’t responsible for any friends lost over the issue). Why are some goods, namely those that come from the human body, thought to be off-limits for sale? Tune in to hear the case for legalizing the repugnant.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/378308630FH Buckley on Cracking the Corruption NutWed, 03 Jan 2018 19:15:41 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/fh-buckley-on-cracking-the-corruption-nut
00:51:28TheBobZadekShownoWhen Frank H. Buckley last joined the show, he surprised Bob with a cogent, intellectual case for the election of Donald Trump. Buckley, a Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law, advised Team Trump on campaign speeches, and geared his last book, The Way Back, towards a set of practical solutions to “restore the promise of America.” His latest book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It, completes the triptych that began with The Once and Future King, about the return of “crown governance” under the Obama administration. It should come as no surprise to listeners to this show we have drifted from the Founders’ vision of a balance of powers — balance between states and Federal government, and among branches of Federal government. Bob and Frank delve deeper into his arguments in all three books, focusing on the age-old problem of corruption — the quid-pro-quo of money for political influence that plagues every system of government. While everyone agrees that corruption is a problem, Buckley argues that platitudes about campaign finance reform and eliminating “dark money” miss the mark, and often worsen the problem by making the political system less competitive. Instead, he offers a set of solutions that limit the influence of lobbyists, reign in the executive branch’s authority, and break up corrupt judicial rings in the states. They also discuss the recent tax bill, and why Buckley thinks its passage is reason enough to vindicate his support for Trump.When Frank H. Buckley last joined the show, he su…When Frank H. Buckley last joined the show, he surprised Bob with a cogent, intellectual case for the election of Donald Trump. Buckley, a Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law, advised Team Trump on campaign speeches, and geared his last book, The Way Back, towards a set of practical solutions to “restore the promise of America.” His latest book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It, completes the triptych that began with The Once and Future King, about the return of “crown governance” under the Obama administration. It should come as no surprise to listeners to this show we have drifted from the Founders’ vision of a balance of powers — balance between states and Federal government, and among branches of Federal government. Bob and Frank delve deeper into his arguments in all three books, focusing on the age-old problem of corruption — the quid-pro-quo of money for political influence that plagues every system of government. While everyone agrees that corruption is a problem, Buckley argues that platitudes about campaign finance reform and eliminating “dark money” miss the mark, and often worsen the problem by making the political system less competitive. Instead, he offers a set of solutions that limit the influence of lobbyists, reign in the executive branch’s authority, and break up corrupt judicial rings in the states. They also discuss the recent tax bill, and why Buckley thinks its passage is reason enough to vindicate his support for Trump.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/378306974Libertarian Minute - Who has time to read the GOP tax bill?Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:12:54 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-minute-who-has-time-to-read-the-gop-tax-bill
00:01:13TheBobZadekShownoPoll results on the popularity of the Trump/GOP tax bill are meaningless.Poll results on the popularity of the Trump/GOP t…Poll results on the popularity of the Trump/GOP tax bill are meaningless.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/371230070Capitalism & Morality: Twin Pillars of the WestMon, 18 Dec 2017 16:05:59 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/capitalism-morality-twin-pillars-of-the-west
00:51:22TheBobZadekShownoJayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politically incorrect when he speaks about the importance of western capitalist institutions to the third world. An Indian-born Canadian citizen, Bhandari is often asked why he left one socialist country for another. To this, he points out that the difference of dysfunction is an order of magnitude — while Canada’s health care system may require people to wait in line for procedures, India’s general lack of a sewage system forces its citizens to wait in a different kind of line. His harsh words are not reserved for the third-world, but also for the European leaders who left a vacuum in the wake of colonialism, now filled by irrationality, demagoguery and superstition. His main points might be considered hate speech if he wasn’t an immigrant himself. He puts the enlightenment value of reason at the center of the moral fabric that holds the West together —those institutions that grant equality before the law, and encourage empathy and compassion. When the state assumes the people’s responsibility to take care of themselves and one another, the result is corruption — governmentally and, he adds, mentally. Bhandari hosts the annual "Capitalism and Morality" seminar in Vancouver, and writes for a variety of libertarian outlets, including the Mises.org and Acting Man. He joins Bob for the full hour . Tune in to hear Bhandari’s international perspective on capitalism and morality, on the show of ideas, not attitude.Jayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politicall…Jayant Bhandari is not afraid to sound politically incorrect when he speaks about the importance of western capitalist institutions to the third world. An Indian-born Canadian citizen, Bhandari is often asked why he left one socialist country for another. To this, he points out that the difference of dysfunction is an order of magnitude — while Canada’s health care system may require people to wait in line for procedures, India’s general lack of a sewage system forces its citizens to wait in a different kind of line. His harsh words are not reserved for the third-world, but also for the European leaders who left a vacuum in the wake of colonialism, now filled by irrationality, demagoguery and superstition. His main points might be considered hate speech if he wasn’t an immigrant himself. He puts the enlightenment value of reason at the center of the moral fabric that holds the West together —those institutions that grant equality before the law, and encourage empathy and compassion. When the state assumes the people’s responsibility to take care of themselves and one another, the result is corruption — governmentally and, he adds, mentally. Bhandari hosts the annual "Capitalism and Morality" seminar in Vancouver, and writes for a variety of libertarian outlets, including the Mises.org and Acting Man. He joins Bob for the full hour . Tune in to hear Bhandari’s international perspective on capitalism and morality, on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/367848527Brad DeLong on Austrian EconomicsMon, 11 Dec 2017 04:33:29 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/brad-delong-on-austrian-economics
00:51:03TheBobZadekShownoProducer Charlie Deist tries to cram a semester of economics into one hour with Professor J. Bradford Delong He continues to look at the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, (see part 1), which holds central banks responsible for creating booms and busts by “pumping” cheap credit into the economy and subsequently “slamming on the breaks” when inflation results. Brad DeLong is a former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is chair of the political economy major. He was also an early blogger, and is one of the most respected voices in the “neoclassical synthesis”—the hybrid of classical, Keynesian, and monetarist macroeconomics taught at universities throughout the world. DeLong has criticized Austrians for putting the blame for business cycles entirely on government. However, he too was concerned by Alan Greenspan’s excessive easing, starting all the way back in 2004, and during the lead-up to the housing bust.
Tune in to find out why DeLong considers himself a student of both Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, and learn what it means to be a liberal in both the modern and classical senses.Producer Charlie Deist tries to cram a semester o…Producer Charlie Deist tries to cram a semester of economics into one hour with Professor J. Bradford Delong He continues to look at the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, (see part 1), which holds central banks responsible for creating booms and busts by “pumping” cheap credit into the economy and subsequently “slamming on the breaks” when inflation results. Brad DeLong is a former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and a professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is chair of the political economy major. He was also an early blogger, and is one of the most respected voices in the “neoclassical synthesis”—the hybrid of classical, Keynesian, and monetarist macroeconomics taught at universities throughout the world. DeLong has criticized Austrians for putting the blame for business cycles entirely on government. However, he too was concerned by Alan Greenspan’s excessive easing, starting all the way back in 2004, and during the lead-up to the housing bust.
Tune in to find out why DeLong considers himself a student of both Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, and learn what it means to be a liberal in both the modern and classical senses.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/364802792Bob Wenzel on Austrian Business Cycle ABCsMon, 04 Dec 2017 14:24:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bob-wenzel-on-austrian-business-cycle-abcs
00:51:53TheBobZadekShownoThis Sunday, producer Charlie Deist interviews Robert Wenzel (@Wenzeleconomics) – editor of the Economic Policy Journal, and Target Liberty, host of The Robert Wenzel Show, and author of several books, including The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (January 24, 2015). He is also a financial consultant, whose advice is rooted in the so-called Austrian school of economics – based on the ideas of F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and other like-minded economists from Austria – which is critical of government interventions in the market. The Austrians were especially aware of the dangers of printing money, having observed the hyperinflation of the nearby Weimar Republic. Their theories of how manipulation of the monetary system spurs bad investment has spawned an entire heterodox tradition, at odds with mainstream interpretations of recessions and depressions. In 2005, Wenzel wrote a blog post applying the Austrian theory of business cycles to the actions the Federal Reserve was taking at the time to prop up the economy, following the recession of 2000–2001. While Alan Greenspan tooted his own horn, Wenzel sounded the alarm. Following the crash, through an unusual series of events, Wenzel was invited to give a talk at New York Federal Reserve Bank, where he planted the Austrian seed. Now, approximately 1,000,000 people have read the speech, in which Wenzel pleaded with the scant crowd of attendees – all dedicated employees at the Fed – to leave their posts and never come back.
With interest rates having been near zero ever since, and stock market and housing prices rising to new highs, are we in need of an Austrian revival?This Sunday, producer Charlie Deist interviews Ro…This Sunday, producer Charlie Deist interviews Robert Wenzel (@Wenzeleconomics) – editor of the Economic Policy Journal, and Target Liberty, host of The Robert Wenzel Show, and author of several books, including The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (January 24, 2015). He is also a financial consultant, whose advice is rooted in the so-called Austrian school of economics – based on the ideas of F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and other like-minded economists from Austria – which is critical of government interventions in the market. The Austrians were especially aware of the dangers of printing money, having observed the hyperinflation of the nearby Weimar Republic. Their theories of how manipulation of the monetary system spurs bad investment has spawned an entire heterodox tradition, at odds with mainstream interpretations of recessions and depressions. In 2005, Wenzel wrote a blog post applying the Austrian theory of business cycles to the actions the Federal Reserve was taking at the time to prop up the economy, following the recession of 2000–2001. While Alan Greenspan tooted his own horn, Wenzel sounded the alarm. Following the crash, through an unusual series of events, Wenzel was invited to give a talk at New York Federal Reserve Bank, where he planted the Austrian seed. Now, approximately 1,000,000 people have read the speech, in which Wenzel pleaded with the scant crowd of attendees – all dedicated employees at the Fed – to leave their posts and never come back.
With interest rates having been near zero ever since, and stock market and housing prices rising to new highs, are we in need of an Austrian revival?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/361625924The Chicken#%*& Club with Jesse EisingerMon, 27 Nov 2017 17:54:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-chicken-club-with-jesse-eisinger
00:51:57TheBobZadekShownoWe’ve covered the problem of mass incarceration on this show before — but what about the flipside: the impunity of corporate executives with cozy relationships to government regulators? Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Jesse Eisinger (@EisingerJ) wanted to know why no bankers or executives went to prison after the 2008 financial crisis. In a bygone era, the Justice Department prosecuted Wall Street executives more vigorously for its high crimes and misdemeanors. Eisinger’s new book, The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives, charts the decline in enforcement of white collar crime, telling the story of a passionate U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — none other than former FBI Director James Comey — and his attempts to jam the revolving doors of power between the DOJ and private law firms. Somehow, we’ve reached a point where bad actors cannot receive the due penalty for their errors without threatening the rest of society. We’ve built a world where “too big to fail” also translates into “too big for jail.” Eisinger finds a source of this cowardice in a perfectionist culture and risk-aversion among top law students, where it's increasingly rare for the Justice Department to bring a case to a jury if there is a chance of losing.
*Jesse Eisinger is a senior reporter and editor at ProPublica. In April 2011, he and a colleague won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for a series of stories on questionable Wall Street practices that helped make the financial crisis the worst since the Great Depression.We’ve covered the problem of mass incarceration o…We’ve covered the problem of mass incarceration on this show before — but what about the flipside: the impunity of corporate executives with cozy relationships to government regulators? Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Jesse Eisinger (@EisingerJ) wanted to know why no bankers or executives went to prison after the 2008 financial crisis. In a bygone era, the Justice Department prosecuted Wall Street executives more vigorously for its high crimes and misdemeanors. Eisinger’s new book, The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives, charts the decline in enforcement of white collar crime, telling the story of a passionate U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — none other than former FBI Director James Comey — and his attempts to jam the revolving doors of power between the DOJ and private law firms. Somehow, we’ve reached a point where bad actors cannot receive the due penalty for their errors without threatening the rest of society. We’ve built a world where “too big to fail” also translates into “too big for jail.” Eisinger finds a source of this cowardice in a perfectionist culture and risk-aversion among top law students, where it's increasingly rare for the Justice Department to bring a case to a jury if there is a chance of losing.
*Jesse Eisinger is a senior reporter and editor at ProPublica. In April 2011, he and a colleague won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for a series of stories on questionable Wall Street practices that helped make the financial crisis the worst since the Great Depression.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/358523783Reclaiming the Republic with G. R. MobleyMon, 20 Nov 2017 18:36:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/reclaiming-the-republic-with-g-r-mobley
00:51:46TheBobZadekShowno2016 confirmed what most libertarians suspected: national elections are not the way to roll back big government. But don’t lose hope – yet. Spokane talk radio host G. R. Mobley has a surprisingly sound plan for “saving your liberties without a national election.” It requires listeners to this program to take note, and share the message. Mobley says the Constitution is a “contract” amongst the States, “to not only create and define the general (i.e. Federal) government with limited and defined powers, but… also [to create] a perpetual union of these same States.” Per contract law, Mobley asserts that context is essential for understanding the definitions and intent of a contract — in this case, the Constitution. The Ratification Debates set the agreed upon terms, which are still vital. If one part of the contract is not being enforced, the whole contract should be void. In 2017, he says the parties to this contract (i.e., the states) need to renegotiate, through a process he calls "Republic Review." Listeners should ideally read and understand these debates, which took place between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in and around 1787. However, a concise version appears in Bob’s new book, *Secret Sauce: The Founders’ Original Recipe for Limited American Democracy.* There is a path to restoring Constitutional governance, but is there a critical mass? What’s needed initially is not so much a full-fledged movement, but a small "remnant" that understands the principles of liberty, when they have ceased to resonate with the average voter. Learn what you need to know to start the ball rolling on "Republic Review."2016 confirmed what most libertarians suspected: …2016 confirmed what most libertarians suspected: national elections are not the way to roll back big government. But don’t lose hope – yet. Spokane talk radio host G. R. Mobley has a surprisingly sound plan for “saving your liberties without a national election.” It requires listeners to this program to take note, and share the message. Mobley says the Constitution is a “contract” amongst the States, “to not only create and define the general (i.e. Federal) government with limited and defined powers, but… also [to create] a perpetual union of these same States.” Per contract law, Mobley asserts that context is essential for understanding the definitions and intent of a contract — in this case, the Constitution. The Ratification Debates set the agreed upon terms, which are still vital. If one part of the contract is not being enforced, the whole contract should be void. In 2017, he says the parties to this contract (i.e., the states) need to renegotiate, through a process he calls "Republic Review." Listeners should ideally read and understand these debates, which took place between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in and around 1787. However, a concise version appears in Bob’s new book, *Secret Sauce: The Founders’ Original Recipe for Limited American Democracy.* There is a path to restoring Constitutional governance, but is there a critical mass? What’s needed initially is not so much a full-fledged movement, but a small "remnant" that understands the principles of liberty, when they have ceased to resonate with the average voter. Learn what you need to know to start the ball rolling on "Republic Review."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/355342403Amy Wax Defends Bourgeois NormsMon, 13 Nov 2017 23:42:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/amy-wax-defends-bourgeois-norms
00:52:06TheBobZadekShownoIt takes courage for a law professor to stand up for her values when she is being publicly condemned by her fellow faculty members, the dean of her law school, student groups, and a media mob. This is what U Penn law professor Amy Wax has done in the wake of her explosive op-ed, "Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture" (Philadelphia Enquirer, Aug. 9, 2017). In the piece, Wax and her co-author Larry Alexander presented some uncontroversial facts about the relationship between stable, two-parent homes and positive outcomes for children. They also reprimanded an upper class that no longer seems willing to preach the importance of traditional values. Some of Wax's colleagues responded to the op-ed piece with alternative theories of why poverty is entrenched, but the overwhelming message of an open letter – signed by 33 U Penn professors – was that Wax had committed an intellectual crime deserving of censure and public shaming. The debate over Wax's praise for "bourgeois values" goes deeper than her arguments for a return to norms of hard work and personal responsibility. At stake is the freedom to challenge or contradict academic groupthink, which equates any identification of legitimate advantages with an apology for unfair privilege. If the students demanding that Wax be demoted get their way, then professors everywhere will feel a "chill" on voicing their own unpopular opinions. Wax joins Bob for the full hour to describe the anatomy of a campus intimidation campaign, and explain why she continues to speak her mind.It takes courage for a law professor to stand up …It takes courage for a law professor to stand up for her values when she is being publicly condemned by her fellow faculty members, the dean of her law school, student groups, and a media mob. This is what U Penn law professor Amy Wax has done in the wake of her explosive op-ed, "Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture" (Philadelphia Enquirer, Aug. 9, 2017). In the piece, Wax and her co-author Larry Alexander presented some uncontroversial facts about the relationship between stable, two-parent homes and positive outcomes for children. They also reprimanded an upper class that no longer seems willing to preach the importance of traditional values. Some of Wax's colleagues responded to the op-ed piece with alternative theories of why poverty is entrenched, but the overwhelming message of an open letter – signed by 33 U Penn professors – was that Wax had committed an intellectual crime deserving of censure and public shaming. The debate over Wax's praise for "bourgeois values" goes deeper than her arguments for a return to norms of hard work and personal responsibility. At stake is the freedom to challenge or contradict academic groupthink, which equates any identification of legitimate advantages with an apology for unfair privilege. If the students demanding that Wax be demoted get their way, then professors everywhere will feel a "chill" on voicing their own unpopular opinions. Wax joins Bob for the full hour to describe the anatomy of a campus intimidation campaign, and explain why she continues to speak her mind.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/352079198Libertarian Minute: Occupational LicensingMon, 06 Nov 2017 21:20:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-minute-occupational-licensing
00:01:40TheBobZadekShownoOffering haircuts to the homeless is now illegal. Occupational licensing has gone too far. Fortunately the Institute for Justice is winning the battle in the states.Offering haircuts to the homeless is now illegal.…Offering haircuts to the homeless is now illegal. Occupational licensing has gone too far. Fortunately the Institute for Justice is winning the battle in the states.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/351936983How to Stay Sane in a Statist WorldMon, 06 Nov 2017 15:58:44 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-to-stay-sane-in-a-statist-world
00:51:17TheBobZadekShownoThis week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health. Edelstein is a long-time libertarian and practitioner of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. This method leaves your childhood in the past, and instead trains you to challenge and replace distorted thinking with a more rational – even cheerful – perspective towards the things we cannot change. As the world hurtles towards an uncertain and unsettling future, we can find comfort in Dr. Edelstein’s advice on how to stay happy in a statist world. First, we need to recognize the traps that we're likely to fall into, including the sacred cow of "self esteem." Self esteem, Edelstein says, is the "unempirical, illogical and impractical" notion that we should rate our whole selves, rather than our actions, and think highly of ourselves regardless. Once we start thinking this way, we're more likely to end up with the opposite emotion when we make mistakes. When large groups or nations succumb to these stark and unrealistic self-portraits, it can lead to nationalism, wars, and even mass insanity. It’s not often that you get to hear a libertarian attorney interview a libertarian clinical psychologist on the secret to overcoming anxiety and depression. Just because the world's gone crazy doesn't mean you have to. Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, also joins the show. Learn how to respond rationally to adverse events from the Bay Area's premier vegan, anarcho-capitalist cognitive behavioral therapist, on the show of ideas, not attitude.This week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps h…This week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health. Edelstein is a long-time libertarian and practitioner of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. This method leaves your childhood in the past, and instead trains you to challenge and replace distorted thinking with a more rational – even cheerful – perspective towards the things we cannot change. As the world hurtles towards an uncertain and unsettling future, we can find comfort in Dr. Edelstein’s advice on how to stay happy in a statist world. First, we need to recognize the traps that we're likely to fall into, including the sacred cow of "self esteem." Self esteem, Edelstein says, is the "unempirical, illogical and impractical" notion that we should rate our whole selves, rather than our actions, and think highly of ourselves regardless. Once we start thinking this way, we're more likely to end up with the opposite emotion when we make mistakes. When large groups or nations succumb to these stark and unrealistic self-portraits, it can lead to nationalism, wars, and even mass insanity. It’s not often that you get to hear a libertarian attorney interview a libertarian clinical psychologist on the secret to overcoming anxiety and depression. Just because the world's gone crazy doesn't mean you have to. Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, also joins the show. Learn how to respond rationally to adverse events from the Bay Area's premier vegan, anarcho-capitalist cognitive behavioral therapist, on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/349271928Robert Alt of the Buckeye Institute: Power to the StatesMon, 30 Oct 2017 14:59:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/robert-alt-of-the-buckeye-institute-power-to-the-states
00:41:19TheBobZadekShownoSo far, the biggest silver lining on the Trump presidency has been a national shift in focus toward state-level policies. In his inauguration speech, President Trump promised to return “power to the people” – devolving responsibilities previously undertaken by Federal Government to the states, where citizens can more effectively voice their opinions, or vote with their feet if that fails. Even the San Francisco Chronicle has praised the “great American tradition” of Federalism since discovering that California could use the concept to resist Federal immigration directives. Robert Alt, President and CEO of the Buckeye Institute, used to work in Washington D.C., but took the helm of the Ohio-based free market think tank in 2012 after deciding that the real change is happening at the state level. Under his leadership, the Buckeye Institute has been winning public policy victories in tax policy, workers’ voting rights, and criminal justice reform. Recently, he has been fighting to grant public sector union workers the ability to vote for their union representation. He and Bob also discuss the Buckeye Institute’s important work in criminal justice, and the need for more ground-up reforms across the 50 states. What can California learn from Ohio, and how can every state engage in novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country?So far, the biggest silver lining on the Trump pr…So far, the biggest silver lining on the Trump presidency has been a national shift in focus toward state-level policies. In his inauguration speech, President Trump promised to return “power to the people” – devolving responsibilities previously undertaken by Federal Government to the states, where citizens can more effectively voice their opinions, or vote with their feet if that fails. Even the San Francisco Chronicle has praised the “great American tradition” of Federalism since discovering that California could use the concept to resist Federal immigration directives. Robert Alt, President and CEO of the Buckeye Institute, used to work in Washington D.C., but took the helm of the Ohio-based free market think tank in 2012 after deciding that the real change is happening at the state level. Under his leadership, the Buckeye Institute has been winning public policy victories in tax policy, workers’ voting rights, and criminal justice reform. Recently, he has been fighting to grant public sector union workers the ability to vote for their union representation. He and Bob also discuss the Buckeye Institute’s important work in criminal justice, and the need for more ground-up reforms across the 50 states. What can California learn from Ohio, and how can every state engage in novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/348230555Lawson Bader on DonorsTrust and the Right to Free AssociationMon, 23 Oct 2017 17:47:02 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/lawson-bader-on-donorstrust-and-the-right-to-free-association
00:52:44TheBobZadekShownoIn 1956, the attorney general of Alabama tried to oust the NAACP from the state, and issued a subpoena for their donor lists. Fortunately, a unanimous Supreme Court decision protected the organization's right to keep this information private – finding that Alabama had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote, “This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Today, DonorsTrust helps philanthropists match their money to the principles of limited government, personal responsibility and free enterprise while remaining anonymous. They serve as a conduit between donors and organizations like the Cato Institute, Mercatus Center, and the American Enterprise Institute, and have attracted sharp criticism from politicians who oppose the ideas these groups promote. While the attacks are couched in terms of “transparency” and preventing “dark money” from influencing elections, this language conceals the drive to weaken a cornerstone of liberty in the U.S. – the right to privacy in one’s freely chosen associations. Lawson Bader (formerly the President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute) recently stepped up as President and CEO of DonorsTrust, where he takes the heat on behalf of this entire network of donors, which is “building a legacy of liberty.” Lawson notes that transparency is for government, whereas privacy is for citizens. He joins Bob to discuss the new threats to freedom of association, and explain the value of donor-advised funds like DonorsTrust – both to philanthropists and the causes they support.In 1956, the attorney general of Alabama tried to…In 1956, the attorney general of Alabama tried to oust the NAACP from the state, and issued a subpoena for their donor lists. Fortunately, a unanimous Supreme Court decision protected the organization's right to keep this information private – finding that Alabama had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote, “This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Today, DonorsTrust helps philanthropists match their money to the principles of limited government, personal responsibility and free enterprise while remaining anonymous. They serve as a conduit between donors and organizations like the Cato Institute, Mercatus Center, and the American Enterprise Institute, and have attracted sharp criticism from politicians who oppose the ideas these groups promote. While the attacks are couched in terms of “transparency” and preventing “dark money” from influencing elections, this language conceals the drive to weaken a cornerstone of liberty in the U.S. – the right to privacy in one’s freely chosen associations. Lawson Bader (formerly the President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute) recently stepped up as President and CEO of DonorsTrust, where he takes the heat on behalf of this entire network of donors, which is “building a legacy of liberty.” Lawson notes that transparency is for government, whereas privacy is for citizens. He joins Bob to discuss the new threats to freedom of association, and explain the value of donor-advised funds like DonorsTrust – both to philanthropists and the causes they support.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/347211086Libertarian Minute: Will Trump Destroy The Presidency?Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:15:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-minute-will-trump-destroy-the-presidency
00:01:42TheBobZadekShownoHarvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith recently wondered out loud whether Trump will destroy the very office of the presidency. His Atlantic magazine article is a must-read for anyone concerned about the expansion of executive authority. Goldsmith quotes James Madison’s cautionary words that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” That is why the founders established the checks and balances within the Constitution to allow each of the three branches of government to serve as checks on the others. Fortunately – try as he might – Trump has not been able to undo the fundamental limits on the executive branch. Although he and his predecessors, Bush and Obama, have expanded the president’s authority with their “pen and phone,” the constitution has prevented Trump from breaking the law… so far. We have the Founders to thank for that. The next time someone argues for an expansion of presidential power that favors “your side,” Think of the precedent it sets for the future, when you don’t know who might be calling the shots. Our president today has more power than any king ever had or will have. And we, through our representatives, give the power to the office. It is time to take it back; from the President and from the faceless and unelected bureaucrats who do his bidding. As presidential power grows, freedom recedes. Go libertarianminute.com for more libertarian ideas.Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith recently won…Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith recently wondered out loud whether Trump will destroy the very office of the presidency. His Atlantic magazine article is a must-read for anyone concerned about the expansion of executive authority. Goldsmith quotes James Madison’s cautionary words that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” That is why the founders established the checks and balances within the Constitution to allow each of the three branches of government to serve as checks on the others. Fortunately – try as he might – Trump has not been able to undo the fundamental limits on the executive branch. Although he and his predecessors, Bush and Obama, have expanded the president’s authority with their “pen and phone,” the constitution has prevented Trump from breaking the law… so far. We have the Founders to thank for that. The next time someone argues for an expansion of presidential power that favors “your side,” Think of the precedent it sets for the future, when you don’t know who might be calling the shots. Our president today has more power than any king ever had or will have. And we, through our representatives, give the power to the office. It is time to take it back; from the President and from the faceless and unelected bureaucrats who do his bidding. As presidential power grows, freedom recedes. Go libertarianminute.com for more libertarian ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/347143810Luis Perez-Breva on Artificial Intelligence MythsMon, 16 Oct 2017 14:33:25 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/luis-perez-breva-on-artificial-intelligence-myths
00:51:55TheBobZadekShownoThe talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant and often misleading dystopian narrative about AI in the future:
Myth 1: AI is going to kill our jobs
Myth 2: Robots are AI
Myth 3: Big Data and Analytics are AI
Myth 4: Machine Learning and Deep Learning are AI
Myth 5: Search engines are AI
Bob and Luis focus on the first myth, which seems to arrive dressed in new garb every couple of decades. Historical figures ranging from Queen Elizabeth I (1589) to John Maynard Keynes (1930) have predicted that new inventions would give rise to mass unemployment, and the dire warnings keep coming. Today's predictions come with the added warning of impending doom. But is there anything to fear (other than fear itself)? Luis is a serial innovator, who currently directs the MIT Innovation Teams Program, MIT’s flagship hands-on innovation program jointly operated between the Schools of Engineering and Management. He joins the show to clarify the difference between automation, robotics, and true artificial intelligence. His new book Innovating: A Doer’s Manifesto for Starting from a Hunch, Prototyping Problems, Scaling Up, and Learning to Be Productively Wrong (MIT Press, 2017) also lays out a framework for thinking about innovation, which cannot be captured in any template or formula. Get ready to use your brain.The talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere…The talk of artificial intelligence is everywhere, but the truth is, most of us don't really know what AI is. In his op-ed in Business Insider, Luis debunks 5 major AI myths that have been manufactured due to the dominant and often misleading dystopian narrative about AI in the future:
Myth 1: AI is going to kill our jobs
Myth 2: Robots are AI
Myth 3: Big Data and Analytics are AI
Myth 4: Machine Learning and Deep Learning are AI
Myth 5: Search engines are AI
Bob and Luis focus on the first myth, which seems to arrive dressed in new garb every couple of decades. Historical figures ranging from Queen Elizabeth I (1589) to John Maynard Keynes (1930) have predicted that new inventions would give rise to mass unemployment, and the dire warnings keep coming. Today's predictions come with the added warning of impending doom. But is there anything to fear (other than fear itself)? Luis is a serial innovator, who currently directs the MIT Innovation Teams Program, MIT’s flagship hands-on innovation program jointly operated between the Schools of Engineering and Management. He joins the show to clarify the difference between automation, robotics, and true artificial intelligence. His new book Innovating: A Doer’s Manifesto for Starting from a Hunch, Prototyping Problems, Scaling Up, and Learning to Be Productively Wrong (MIT Press, 2017) also lays out a framework for thinking about innovation, which cannot be captured in any template or formula. Get ready to use your brain.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/346107283Anthony Fisher on Antifa Violence and NeoreactionMon, 09 Oct 2017 17:26:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/anthony-fisher-on-antifa-violence-and-neoreaction
00:48:27TheBobZadekShownoLast time writer and filmmaker* Anthony L. Fisher joined the show, he exposed the mysterious death of a 20-year-old confidential informant. His Reason TV documentary and article were later picked up by 60 Minutes, and led many to rethink the role of confidential informants in the criminal justice system. Anthony also covered the Occupy Wall Street protests back in 2011, when it was unclear what the movement stood for or where it was heading. In a column for the Daily Beast, Anthony brings his characteristic clarity and nuance to bear on the anti-fascist protesters – aka "Antifa" – that have made recent headlines. Between Nazi white supremacists and anti-fascists (aka “Antifa”), Anthony is adamant that the former possess the more odious ideology, and are responsible for far more victims than the latter. However, this does not justify the acceptance of indiscriminate violence displayed by Antifa at recent protests and rallies. Anthony notes that violent, anarchic tactics have historically bolstered far-right elements. This suggests non-violent resistance is still the best option against a rising tide of xenophobia in the United States and elsewhere. This Sunday, Anthony will take your calls on the disturbing glorification of violence by some intellectuals, and the watering down of terms like “fascist” to include individuals who merely disagree with left-wing orthodoxy. When anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is labelled a fascist, the result is a poisoned public discourse. Can we recover civil dialogue in the midst of such intellectual laziness? Bob and Anthony will also break down the differences between alt-right, neoreactionary, and outright fascist/white supremacist groups.Last time writer and filmmaker* Anthony L. Fisher…Last time writer and filmmaker* Anthony L. Fisher joined the show, he exposed the mysterious death of a 20-year-old confidential informant. His Reason TV documentary and article were later picked up by 60 Minutes, and led many to rethink the role of confidential informants in the criminal justice system. Anthony also covered the Occupy Wall Street protests back in 2011, when it was unclear what the movement stood for or where it was heading. In a column for the Daily Beast, Anthony brings his characteristic clarity and nuance to bear on the anti-fascist protesters – aka "Antifa" – that have made recent headlines. Between Nazi white supremacists and anti-fascists (aka “Antifa”), Anthony is adamant that the former possess the more odious ideology, and are responsible for far more victims than the latter. However, this does not justify the acceptance of indiscriminate violence displayed by Antifa at recent protests and rallies. Anthony notes that violent, anarchic tactics have historically bolstered far-right elements. This suggests non-violent resistance is still the best option against a rising tide of xenophobia in the United States and elsewhere. This Sunday, Anthony will take your calls on the disturbing glorification of violence by some intellectuals, and the watering down of terms like “fascist” to include individuals who merely disagree with left-wing orthodoxy. When anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is labelled a fascist, the result is a poisoned public discourse. Can we recover civil dialogue in the midst of such intellectual laziness? Bob and Anthony will also break down the differences between alt-right, neoreactionary, and outright fascist/white supremacist groups.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/345081485Rethinking Pax Americana with John GlaserTue, 03 Oct 2017 00:12:41 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/rethinking-pax-americana-with-john-glaser
00:51:47TheBobZadekShownoWe’re living through the longest period of peace the modern world has ever known, so why all the hysteria of late? John Glaser, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, says it’s past time to start closing many of the 800 U.S. military bases around the world, and retool America’s strategy for deterring threats. He argues that the current saber rattling with Iran and North Korea represent the consequences of decades of overly-expansionist interventions. The idea of a “Pax Americana,” or the pacifying influence of American military dominance, has been around since the beginning of the Cold War. It has led us to make compromises with brutal dictators to maintain bases near perceived threats, and continues to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Worse, the alleged deterrent effect of a hegemonic military power may be an illusion. In a recent Cato policy paper*, Glaser persuasively argues that certain countries, which might otherwise feel neutrally towards the U.S., end up feeling threatened, and ramp up their military spending accordingly. Did Trump’s “get tough” rhetoric at the U.N. make us more or less safe?We’re living through the longest period of peace …We’re living through the longest period of peace the modern world has ever known, so why all the hysteria of late? John Glaser, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, says it’s past time to start closing many of the 800 U.S. military bases around the world, and retool America’s strategy for deterring threats. He argues that the current saber rattling with Iran and North Korea represent the consequences of decades of overly-expansionist interventions. The idea of a “Pax Americana,” or the pacifying influence of American military dominance, has been around since the beginning of the Cold War. It has led us to make compromises with brutal dictators to maintain bases near perceived threats, and continues to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Worse, the alleged deterrent effect of a hegemonic military power may be an illusion. In a recent Cato policy paper*, Glaser persuasively argues that certain countries, which might otherwise feel neutrally towards the U.S., end up feeling threatened, and ramp up their military spending accordingly. Did Trump’s “get tough” rhetoric at the U.N. make us more or less safe?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/343969491Federalism and the Flat Tax: The Austin Petersen PlanMon, 25 Sep 2017 16:25:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/federalism-and-the-flat-tax-the-austin-petersen-plan
00:52:07TheBobZadekShownoBack in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows took a major political risk to stand on his North Carolina constituents’ principles. He filed a motion to vacate the speaker chair held by John Boehner. Members of the House Freedom Caucus like Meadows have routinely been accused of dividing the Republican Party by holding fast to radical ideas, like cutting the $20 trillion deficit. Austin Petersen – a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri – looks to join the ranks of Meadows, et al. in returning the party to fiscal sanity and constitutional principles. A libertarian until recently, Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative media producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination. His plan for resolving the GOP’s identity crisis invokes federalism – the principle that states reserve powers not granted to the Federal Government – and a flat tax to spur growth and shrink government. For this, he will no doubt be vilified by moderate Republicans as much as by his actual opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill. Petersen joins Bob to discuss his stance on these issues, along with those where he disagrees with the Libertarian Party, such as the non-aggression principle. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AP4Liberty, and hear him now on the show of ideas not attitude.Back in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows to…Back in 2015, U.S. Representative Mark Meadows took a major political risk to stand on his North Carolina constituents’ principles. He filed a motion to vacate the speaker chair held by John Boehner. Members of the House Freedom Caucus like Meadows have routinely been accused of dividing the Republican Party by holding fast to radical ideas, like cutting the $20 trillion deficit. Austin Petersen – a 2018 U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri – looks to join the ranks of Meadows, et al. in returning the party to fiscal sanity and constitutional principles. A libertarian until recently, Petersen earned his reputation as a provocative media producer and commentator, who gave Gary Johnson a run for his money in seeking the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination. His plan for resolving the GOP’s identity crisis invokes federalism – the principle that states reserve powers not granted to the Federal Government – and a flat tax to spur growth and shrink government. For this, he will no doubt be vilified by moderate Republicans as much as by his actual opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill. Petersen joins Bob to discuss his stance on these issues, along with those where he disagrees with the Libertarian Party, such as the non-aggression principle. You can follow Austin on Twitter at @AP4Liberty, and hear him now on the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/342893928Michael Strong on Education, Entrepreneurship & CapitalismMon, 18 Sep 2017 13:44:11 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/michael-strong-on-education-entrepreneurship-capitalism
00:51:54TheBobZadekShownoThe year is 1710, and the Industrial Revolution is taking off in the West, creating the world's first middle class, and giving rise to prosperous colonial outposts on the American frontier. But the colonies' new-found wealth has its critics. Cotton Mather, a Puritan minister at Harvard University, laments that "Religion brought forth prosperity, and the daughter destroyed the mother." Puritanism's offshoots – the Protestant work ethic, and arguably, the prosperity gospel – still drive the biggest engine of material wealth the world has ever seen, and Harvard types are still suspicious of its fruit. Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist behind the term "creative destruction," predicted that intellectuals – who don't labor or trade to earn their income – would undermine the capitalist system and shackle the entrepreneur. Michael Strong – an intellectual and an entrepreneur, as well as critic and champion of the market – is an exception. Strong has founded multiple innovative charter schools based on Montessori, Socratic and entrepreneurial principles, written books on education and entrepreneurship, and co-founded Conscious Capitalism, Inc., with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey to promote entrepreneurial solutions to world problems. Voices like Strong's are especially important as the West loses faith in the very ideas that brought about its prosperity – just when these ideas are needed most in the developing world. Michael joins guest hosts Charlie Deist (producer of The Bob Zadek Show) and Joe Quirk (President of The Seasteading Institute) to distinguish between valid critiques of historical capitalism and dogmatic repression of the entrepreneurial spirit. Strong will also propose his biggest idea yet for unleashing human potential – the startup city.The year is 1710, and the Industrial Revolution i…The year is 1710, and the Industrial Revolution is taking off in the West, creating the world's first middle class, and giving rise to prosperous colonial outposts on the American frontier. But the colonies' new-found wealth has its critics. Cotton Mather, a Puritan minister at Harvard University, laments that "Religion brought forth prosperity, and the daughter destroyed the mother." Puritanism's offshoots – the Protestant work ethic, and arguably, the prosperity gospel – still drive the biggest engine of material wealth the world has ever seen, and Harvard types are still suspicious of its fruit. Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist behind the term "creative destruction," predicted that intellectuals – who don't labor or trade to earn their income – would undermine the capitalist system and shackle the entrepreneur. Michael Strong – an intellectual and an entrepreneur, as well as critic and champion of the market – is an exception. Strong has founded multiple innovative charter schools based on Montessori, Socratic and entrepreneurial principles, written books on education and entrepreneurship, and co-founded Conscious Capitalism, Inc., with Whole Foods CEO John Mackey to promote entrepreneurial solutions to world problems. Voices like Strong's are especially important as the West loses faith in the very ideas that brought about its prosperity – just when these ideas are needed most in the developing world. Michael joins guest hosts Charlie Deist (producer of The Bob Zadek Show) and Joe Quirk (President of The Seasteading Institute) to distinguish between valid critiques of historical capitalism and dogmatic repression of the entrepreneurial spirit. Strong will also propose his biggest idea yet for unleashing human potential – the startup city.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/341896499Leviathan in Chains: Michael Munger on Public Choice EconomicsMon, 11 Sep 2017 16:31:17 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/leviathan-in-chains-michael-munger-on-public-choice-economics
00:52:23TheBobZadekShownoNancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains purports to be a bombshell of a book. Praised by NPR, her tale of how a southern academic single-handedly masterminded a plan to subvert American democracy is perfectly crafted to inflame and entertain progressive partisans. MacLean's conspiracy theory traces the “radical right’s stealth plan,” and quotes the central bogeyman, Professor James M. Buchanan, saying “I can fight this [democracy] . . . I want to fight this.” The bad news for MacLean’s fawning reviewers is that Buchanan never said this. MacLean made it up (or at least made it sound like he said it). Vox.com delivers a death blow to the book’s premise of the shadowy origins of public choice economics – a common-sense branch of the dismal science that explains government failures in terms of bad incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats. Professor Michael Munger is both MacLean's colleague at Duke and an expert on public choice. He joins the show this Sunday to break down Buchanan’s real legacy – his Nobel-Prize winning contributions to economic science – and to help Bob understand the bizarre progressive reaction to his work. One of public choice’s central insights, and the theme of Bob’s new book, Secret Sauce, is that democracy must be limited by a constitution to protect the rights of minorities and individuals from infringement by the majority. Ironically, it is progressives who can best utilize Buchanan's insights to resist a power-grab by our democratically-elected president and congress. Don’t miss the autopsy of MacLean’s failed attempt at revisionist history (or “historical fiction,” to put it in Michael's more charitable terms).Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains purports to b…Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains purports to be a bombshell of a book. Praised by NPR, her tale of how a southern academic single-handedly masterminded a plan to subvert American democracy is perfectly crafted to inflame and entertain progressive partisans. MacLean's conspiracy theory traces the “radical right’s stealth plan,” and quotes the central bogeyman, Professor James M. Buchanan, saying “I can fight this [democracy] . . . I want to fight this.” The bad news for MacLean’s fawning reviewers is that Buchanan never said this. MacLean made it up (or at least made it sound like he said it). Vox.com delivers a death blow to the book’s premise of the shadowy origins of public choice economics – a common-sense branch of the dismal science that explains government failures in terms of bad incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats. Professor Michael Munger is both MacLean's colleague at Duke and an expert on public choice. He joins the show this Sunday to break down Buchanan’s real legacy – his Nobel-Prize winning contributions to economic science – and to help Bob understand the bizarre progressive reaction to his work. One of public choice’s central insights, and the theme of Bob’s new book, Secret Sauce, is that democracy must be limited by a constitution to protect the rights of minorities and individuals from infringement by the majority. Ironically, it is progressives who can best utilize Buchanan's insights to resist a power-grab by our democratically-elected president and congress. Don’t miss the autopsy of MacLean’s failed attempt at revisionist history (or “historical fiction,” to put it in Michael's more charitable terms).tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/34086293916 Years Later – The Forever War Rages OnMon, 04 Sep 2017 15:28:06 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/16-years-later-the-forever-war-rages-on
00:51:19TheBobZadekShownoWhat President Bush began, and President Obama failed to end, Trump now proposes to extend. The War in Afghanistan is the single longest military conflict in U.S. history – just beating out the 14-year-long Morro Rebellion – leading some to dub it “the Forever War.” Generals who were initially optimistic supporters of nation-building have lowered their expectations, and anticipate decades of involvement just to keep dangerous groups within the region at bay. The rationale for increasing troop presence is that more force will lead to a decisive victory. But repeating the claim that we are going to “win bigly” does not suggest a real strategy that distinguishes Trump’s policy from his two unsuccessful predecessors. Anthony Alfidi is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve who has been to Afghanistan in uniform. He joins Bob in studio this Sunday to offer his perspective on the prospects for an eventual troop withdrawal. The country’s problems go beyond its reputation as a terrorist breeding ground. It has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, high rates of illiteracy (especially among women), and other barriers to effective political and economic development. It seems reasonable to wonder whether U.S. drone strikes and drug raids are helping. Anthony does, however, think there is hope in the form of the rising generation, which is increasingly educated. Tune in to hear how the idea of generational cycles and the “fourth turning” could signal a positive resurgence for Afghanistan.What President Bush began, and President Obama fa…What President Bush began, and President Obama failed to end, Trump now proposes to extend. The War in Afghanistan is the single longest military conflict in U.S. history – just beating out the 14-year-long Morro Rebellion – leading some to dub it “the Forever War.” Generals who were initially optimistic supporters of nation-building have lowered their expectations, and anticipate decades of involvement just to keep dangerous groups within the region at bay. The rationale for increasing troop presence is that more force will lead to a decisive victory. But repeating the claim that we are going to “win bigly” does not suggest a real strategy that distinguishes Trump’s policy from his two unsuccessful predecessors. Anthony Alfidi is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve who has been to Afghanistan in uniform. He joins Bob in studio this Sunday to offer his perspective on the prospects for an eventual troop withdrawal. The country’s problems go beyond its reputation as a terrorist breeding ground. It has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, high rates of illiteracy (especially among women), and other barriers to effective political and economic development. It seems reasonable to wonder whether U.S. drone strikes and drug raids are helping. Anthony does, however, think there is hope in the form of the rising generation, which is increasingly educated. Tune in to hear how the idea of generational cycles and the “fourth turning” could signal a positive resurgence for Afghanistan.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/337841147Richard Epstein Puts Climate Science In PerspectiveMon, 14 Aug 2017 16:09:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/richard-epstein-puts-climate-science-in-perspective
00:52:02TheBobZadekShownoA new "state of the climate" report from 13 Federal agencies says Americans may already be experiencing the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, President Trump is doubling down in defense of his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. This may have been a prudent decision, but Trump's reasons for ignoring the accord's emissions reductions goals are based on the same flawed logic that he's used to promote protectionist trade policy. Namely, the President says he stands for "Pittsburgh, not Paris" – suggesting that what’s good for one (environmentally or economically) is bad for the other. In June, Professor Richard Epstein corrected Trump’s zero-sum mindset on trade. The Professor returns to the show with an economic analysis of why the Paris agreement is a bad deal. Bob will pose a thought experiment to highlight the core principles (or lack thereof) behind typical environmental regulations. What are our obligations to future generations when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions? Can we analyze environmental externalities within the framework of the libertarian non-aggression principle, or is the cause-and-effect too flimsy to inflict damages on the biggest emitters? Tune in for another edition of Advanced Topics in Libertarianism with "The Libertarian” himself.A new "state of the climate" report from 13 Feder…A new "state of the climate" report from 13 Federal agencies says Americans may already be experiencing the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, President Trump is doubling down in defense of his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. This may have been a prudent decision, but Trump's reasons for ignoring the accord's emissions reductions goals are based on the same flawed logic that he's used to promote protectionist trade policy. Namely, the President says he stands for "Pittsburgh, not Paris" – suggesting that what’s good for one (environmentally or economically) is bad for the other. In June, Professor Richard Epstein corrected Trump’s zero-sum mindset on trade. The Professor returns to the show with an economic analysis of why the Paris agreement is a bad deal. Bob will pose a thought experiment to highlight the core principles (or lack thereof) behind typical environmental regulations. What are our obligations to future generations when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions? Can we analyze environmental externalities within the framework of the libertarian non-aggression principle, or is the cause-and-effect too flimsy to inflict damages on the biggest emitters? Tune in for another edition of Advanced Topics in Libertarianism with "The Libertarian” himself.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/336861206The War on Chinese Restaurants with Jack ChinMon, 07 Aug 2017 17:31:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-war-on-chinese-restaurants
00:48:53TheBobZadekShownoHere’s a fun fact: there are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are McDonald’s, KFC’s and Burger Kings combined. No doubt this is partly a result of the dedicated entrepreneurship of Chinese immigrants and the American appetite for sweet and sour pork, but there is also a story of economic discrimination behind the flourishing of dim sum dens, chop suey canteens, and Szechuan saloons. Because of the prejudicial hiring environment at the turn of the 20th century, restaurants and launderettes were among the only sectors in which Chinese immigrants to the United States could get a foothold. Even as self-employed restaurateurs, Chinese Americans faced fierce resistance from unionized competition, who hid behind a smokescreen of moral panic and virulently racist propaganda. Gabriel “Jack” Chin is a legal scholar and Law Professor at UC Davis, where he teaches Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Race and Law. Chin recently co-authored an eye-opening article titled “The War on Chinese Restaurants” for Cato’s quarterly journal Regulation. He documents this sorry episode in American history, in which states and local governments persistently discriminated against Chinese immigrants – including bans on white women entering their restaurants – even after the courts declared such policies unconstitutional. The market demand for Chinese food eventually won out, but only after two pieces of federal legislation excluding Chinese immigrants.Here’s a fun fact: there are more Chinese restaur…Here’s a fun fact: there are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are McDonald’s, KFC’s and Burger Kings combined. No doubt this is partly a result of the dedicated entrepreneurship of Chinese immigrants and the American appetite for sweet and sour pork, but there is also a story of economic discrimination behind the flourishing of dim sum dens, chop suey canteens, and Szechuan saloons. Because of the prejudicial hiring environment at the turn of the 20th century, restaurants and launderettes were among the only sectors in which Chinese immigrants to the United States could get a foothold. Even as self-employed restaurateurs, Chinese Americans faced fierce resistance from unionized competition, who hid behind a smokescreen of moral panic and virulently racist propaganda. Gabriel “Jack” Chin is a legal scholar and Law Professor at UC Davis, where he teaches Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Race and Law. Chin recently co-authored an eye-opening article titled “The War on Chinese Restaurants” for Cato’s quarterly journal Regulation. He documents this sorry episode in American history, in which states and local governments persistently discriminated against Chinese immigrants – including bans on white women entering their restaurants – even after the courts declared such policies unconstitutional. The market demand for Chinese food eventually won out, but only after two pieces of federal legislation excluding Chinese immigrants.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/334579559Libertarianism vs. Center Right: Common Ground & Fault LinesMon, 24 Jul 2017 15:04:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarianism-vs-center-right-common-ground-fault-lines
00:51:33TheBobZadekShownoWashington’s dysfunction is reaching epic new proportions in Congress's current repeal-and-replace debate. Last week, Will Wilkinson noted the GOP’s dilemma of wanting to use small government rhetoric while still pandering to their constituents and their favored welfare programs. Is there a solution that balances sensible, limited government principles with popular support? Joyce Cordi believes there is, and that the answer to this and many intractable political problems lies in friendly bi-partisan engagement and sensible centrist reforms with a conservative bent. Joyce hosts the “Reimagine America” radio program – a virtual town hall on 860 AM, the Answer, and brings an extensive business background to bear on the major issues dividing the American body politic. She likens government to a big, clunky business in need of better, leaner management, and a clearer vision of 21st century governance. She joins Bob to debate why health care reform is stalled, and what it would take to avert the looming disaster of ObamaCare’s insurance cost death spiral. She argues that the new health insurance entitlement is here to stay, but that government need not control every aspect of the healthcare industry. Catch Joyce Cordi every Saturday from 12-1pm, hosting her show – Reimagine America – on 860 AM, The Answer, and don’t miss this special episode of the show of ideas, not attitude.Washington’s dysfunction is reaching epic new pro…Washington’s dysfunction is reaching epic new proportions in Congress's current repeal-and-replace debate. Last week, Will Wilkinson noted the GOP’s dilemma of wanting to use small government rhetoric while still pandering to their constituents and their favored welfare programs. Is there a solution that balances sensible, limited government principles with popular support? Joyce Cordi believes there is, and that the answer to this and many intractable political problems lies in friendly bi-partisan engagement and sensible centrist reforms with a conservative bent. Joyce hosts the “Reimagine America” radio program – a virtual town hall on 860 AM, the Answer, and brings an extensive business background to bear on the major issues dividing the American body politic. She likens government to a big, clunky business in need of better, leaner management, and a clearer vision of 21st century governance. She joins Bob to debate why health care reform is stalled, and what it would take to avert the looming disaster of ObamaCare’s insurance cost death spiral. She argues that the new health insurance entitlement is here to stay, but that government need not control every aspect of the healthcare industry. Catch Joyce Cordi every Saturday from 12-1pm, hosting her show – Reimagine America – on 860 AM, The Answer, and don’t miss this special episode of the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/333487807Will Wilkonson: GOP Should Embrace WelfareSun, 16 Jul 2017 22:48:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/will-wilkonson-gop-should-embrace-welfare
00:50:31TheBobZadekShownoRepublicans looking to repeal and replace Obamacare are in a dilemma of their own making this week. They have branded themselves as small government defenders, promising reductions in taxes and subsidies, despite knowledge that most of their constituents oppose cuts to their favored welfare programs. This may seem like an intractable problem to the typical conservative, but Will Wilkinson – Vice President for Policy at the Niskanen Center – offers a lifeline to a struggling G.O.P. in a recent NY Times article [For Trump and G.O.P., the Welfare State Shouldn’t Be the Enemy]. He notes a paradox the core of limited government philosophy – as an empirical matter, liberty seems to be maximized when the total size of government, measured in spending, is larger. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom confirms that hybrid high-tax, low-regulation policies are working for some of the freest countries on earth. Behind this argument is a new wave of libertarian thought – the intellectual offspring of F.A. Hayek – that incorporates advances in institutional and experimental economics to overcome progressive objections to markets and private property. Wilkinson and the Niskanen Center are pushing a new frontier that could give Republicans space to actually govern. Why the NY Times is offering Republicans such sage advice is a question that will likely remain unanswered, but Wilkinson will take your calls and try to persuade you that his proposed “liberal”-tarian mutation is evolution in the right direction.Republicans looking to repeal and replace Obamaca…Republicans looking to repeal and replace Obamacare are in a dilemma of their own making this week. They have branded themselves as small government defenders, promising reductions in taxes and subsidies, despite knowledge that most of their constituents oppose cuts to their favored welfare programs. This may seem like an intractable problem to the typical conservative, but Will Wilkinson – Vice President for Policy at the Niskanen Center – offers a lifeline to a struggling G.O.P. in a recent NY Times article [For Trump and G.O.P., the Welfare State Shouldn’t Be the Enemy]. He notes a paradox the core of limited government philosophy – as an empirical matter, liberty seems to be maximized when the total size of government, measured in spending, is larger. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom confirms that hybrid high-tax, low-regulation policies are working for some of the freest countries on earth. Behind this argument is a new wave of libertarian thought – the intellectual offspring of F.A. Hayek – that incorporates advances in institutional and experimental economics to overcome progressive objections to markets and private property. Wilkinson and the Niskanen Center are pushing a new frontier that could give Republicans space to actually govern. Why the NY Times is offering Republicans such sage advice is a question that will likely remain unanswered, but Wilkinson will take your calls and try to persuade you that his proposed “liberal”-tarian mutation is evolution in the right direction.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/332585055Jeff Miron on Sessions' Drug War Re-EscalationMon, 10 Jul 2017 23:24:07 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jeff-miron-on-sessions-drug-war-re-escalation
00:51:27TheBobZadekShownoIn a recent Washington Post op-ed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions inadvertently argued the case libertarians have been making about the War on Drugs for decades. Sessions observed, correctly, that the black market for drugs is inherently violent. He failed to see that the majority of violence stems from the illegality of the market – not from the products themselves. Prohibition, the failed experiment that never completely ended, showed signs of waning over the past 15 years. This was thanks in part to the work of economists like Milton Friedman (among the first to call for the legalization of all drugs) and more recently, Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor and prominent libertarian voice for ending the War on Drugs. Sessions, however, seems determined to bring it back into full force. Unfortunately, it is Sessions (and not the expert economists) who holds the levers of federal power. Professor Miron’s key point on prohibition is based on the same principle behind all libertarian thought: drug use is an individual decision, and government has no right to interfere. He has written four books including "Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition" and "Libertarianism, from A to Z." Bob and Jeff look at the potential impact of Sessions' re-escalation of the War on Drugs, following a string of new state-based experiments in marijuana legalization and decriminalization.In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Attorney Gener…In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions inadvertently argued the case libertarians have been making about the War on Drugs for decades. Sessions observed, correctly, that the black market for drugs is inherently violent. He failed to see that the majority of violence stems from the illegality of the market – not from the products themselves. Prohibition, the failed experiment that never completely ended, showed signs of waning over the past 15 years. This was thanks in part to the work of economists like Milton Friedman (among the first to call for the legalization of all drugs) and more recently, Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor and prominent libertarian voice for ending the War on Drugs. Sessions, however, seems determined to bring it back into full force. Unfortunately, it is Sessions (and not the expert economists) who holds the levers of federal power. Professor Miron’s key point on prohibition is based on the same principle behind all libertarian thought: drug use is an individual decision, and government has no right to interfere. He has written four books including "Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition" and "Libertarianism, from A to Z." Bob and Jeff look at the potential impact of Sessions' re-escalation of the War on Drugs, following a string of new state-based experiments in marijuana legalization and decriminalization.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/331403780Chris Edwards: A Libertarian Infrastructure PlanMon, 03 Jul 2017 20:17:22 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/chris-edwards-a-libertarian-infrastructure-plan
00:52:05TheBobZadekShownoIt’s been called Friedman’s Law, and it holds almost as constant as any law of physics:
"It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else."
But what's to be done when some amount of government spending is inevitable? People often bring up roads and infrastructure as the counterpoint to the libertarian injunction to “privatize it!” Chris Edwards – editor of the Cato Institute’s DownsizingGovernment.org – says that infrastructure isn't quite the exception government’s cheerleaders make it out to be. In a recent policy bulletin, Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure?, Edwards shows how the Federal Government can decrease its involvement in roads, bridges, ports and dams. The majority of infrastructure is already owned and operated by the private sector, with the next largest chunk owned by state and local governments – as it should be. “Asset ownership conveys responsibility;” Edwards says, “federal intervention diffuses it.” He joins Bob to discuss the true state of U.S. infrastructure (rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated) and the hands-off policies that can accelerate the right kind of infrastructure at the right price.It’s been called Friedman’s Law, and it holds alm…It’s been called Friedman’s Law, and it holds almost as constant as any law of physics:
"It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else."
But what's to be done when some amount of government spending is inevitable? People often bring up roads and infrastructure as the counterpoint to the libertarian injunction to “privatize it!” Chris Edwards – editor of the Cato Institute’s DownsizingGovernment.org – says that infrastructure isn't quite the exception government’s cheerleaders make it out to be. In a recent policy bulletin, Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure?, Edwards shows how the Federal Government can decrease its involvement in roads, bridges, ports and dams. The majority of infrastructure is already owned and operated by the private sector, with the next largest chunk owned by state and local governments – as it should be. “Asset ownership conveys responsibility;” Edwards says, “federal intervention diffuses it.” He joins Bob to discuss the true state of U.S. infrastructure (rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated) and the hands-off policies that can accelerate the right kind of infrastructure at the right price.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/330209031Richard Epstein: Trump vs. Free TradeMon, 26 Jun 2017 16:56:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/richard-epstein-trump-vs-free-trade
00:52:02TheBobZadekShownoTake a guess who said the following:
"I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”
If it weren’t for the all-caps giveaway at the end, the above tweet from President Trump’s could just as easily have come from his predecessor in the Oval Office, or even Bernie Sanders. To many, the statement appears perfectly sound. After all, we expect fairness in our personal dealings with others; our deals with global trading partners would seem to be no exception. Senior Hoover Institution Fellow and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein says that fairness should guide our trade policy, but that the classical liberal view of fairness happens to align with free trade. Fraud and coercion are certainly unfair practices, but mutually beneficial trade among willing buyers and sellers is not only fair, but is the very source of our wealth and prosperity. Epstein is known for his erudite commentary on law, politics and economics. He recently discussed Trump’s wrong-headed approach to trade on his Hoover Podcast The Libertarian. On this show, the Professor is in. Richard and Bob will discuss the threat of an escalating trade war, and the value of free trade in keeping state and federal policymakers in line when it comes to domestic policies that would harm U.S. competitiveness.Take a guess who said the following:
"I believe …Take a guess who said the following:
"I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”
If it weren’t for the all-caps giveaway at the end, the above tweet from President Trump’s could just as easily have come from his predecessor in the Oval Office, or even Bernie Sanders. To many, the statement appears perfectly sound. After all, we expect fairness in our personal dealings with others; our deals with global trading partners would seem to be no exception. Senior Hoover Institution Fellow and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein says that fairness should guide our trade policy, but that the classical liberal view of fairness happens to align with free trade. Fraud and coercion are certainly unfair practices, but mutually beneficial trade among willing buyers and sellers is not only fair, but is the very source of our wealth and prosperity. Epstein is known for his erudite commentary on law, politics and economics. He recently discussed Trump’s wrong-headed approach to trade on his Hoover Podcast The Libertarian. On this show, the Professor is in. Richard and Bob will discuss the threat of an escalating trade war, and the value of free trade in keeping state and federal policymakers in line when it comes to domestic policies that would harm U.S. competitiveness.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/327807544James Kirchick on *The End of Europe*Tue, 13 Jun 2017 03:22:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/james-kirchick-on-the-end-of-europe
00:52:34TheBobZadekShownoFor the past 70 years, Europe has proven a stable demonstration of the values of humanism, democracy, free trade, and solidarity – in a word, of liberalism. This experiment, supported by American leadership worldwide, gave rise to the hope of ever-increasing cooperation and trade among peaceful democratic nations. The European Union was supposed to spur this vision of unified diversity along. Columnist and foreign correspondent James Kirchick predicts the rapid demise of that dream, and vividly documents the beginning of the decline in his book, The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Ages. Kirchick has reported on the cascade of illiberal movements sweeping across Europe – from Great Britain to Hungary – all under the specter of creeping Russian aggression. This week, British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – the same man who touted Hugo Chavez as a champion of the Venezuelan people – celebrates his far-left party’s parliamentary victories. Meanwhile, extremists of all stripes are gaining traction across the continent. The current alternatives to the E.U. seem grim, but is its survival essential for Europe to have a prosperous, peaceful and tolerant future? James joins the show for the full hour and takes calls.For the past 70 years, Europe has proven a stable…For the past 70 years, Europe has proven a stable demonstration of the values of humanism, democracy, free trade, and solidarity – in a word, of liberalism. This experiment, supported by American leadership worldwide, gave rise to the hope of ever-increasing cooperation and trade among peaceful democratic nations. The European Union was supposed to spur this vision of unified diversity along. Columnist and foreign correspondent James Kirchick predicts the rapid demise of that dream, and vividly documents the beginning of the decline in his book, The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Ages. Kirchick has reported on the cascade of illiberal movements sweeping across Europe – from Great Britain to Hungary – all under the specter of creeping Russian aggression. This week, British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – the same man who touted Hugo Chavez as a champion of the Venezuelan people – celebrates his far-left party’s parliamentary victories. Meanwhile, extremists of all stripes are gaining traction across the continent. The current alternatives to the E.U. seem grim, but is its survival essential for Europe to have a prosperous, peaceful and tolerant future? James joins the show for the full hour and takes calls.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/325054257Heather Mac Donald on *The War on Cops*Mon, 29 May 2017 17:21:26 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/heather-mac-donald-on-the-war-on-cops
00:52:28TheBobZadekShownoWhatever your opinion is of law enforcement, the Black Lives Matter movement, or the root causes of violent crime, you can't claim to be informed without reading Heather Mac Donald's latest book, *The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.* The stories and statistics brought to light by the Manhattan Institute Fellow go against much of what liberal elites and civil libertarians alike wish to believe. The prevailing narrative goes like this: inner-city violence and dysfunction result from a combination of unnecessary laws, a racially-biased legal system, and police that routinely violate the rights of the citizens they're supposed to protect. Against this narrative, Mac Donald brings evidence of a surge in violent crime – primarily victimizing African Americans – following a rising tide of anti-police sentiment among major media and politicians. Mac Donald channels former FBI Director James Comey in claiming that the fear of false accusation has caused police departments to dial back the "proactive policing" that has been credited with reducing past violent crime waves. Her speeches on college campuses have been shut down by the usual suspects (student mobs inflamed by the "threat" of a free exchange of ideas) leaving the strongest counter-counter-narratives to Mac Donald's counter-narrative unexpressed. Mac Donald joins the show to defend the police from unsupported charges of racial bias, and Bob takes calls to test the thesis of *The War on Cops* against a strict interpretation of the Constitution's civil liberty guarantees.Whatever your opinion is of law enforcement, the …Whatever your opinion is of law enforcement, the Black Lives Matter movement, or the root causes of violent crime, you can't claim to be informed without reading Heather Mac Donald's latest book, *The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.* The stories and statistics brought to light by the Manhattan Institute Fellow go against much of what liberal elites and civil libertarians alike wish to believe. The prevailing narrative goes like this: inner-city violence and dysfunction result from a combination of unnecessary laws, a racially-biased legal system, and police that routinely violate the rights of the citizens they're supposed to protect. Against this narrative, Mac Donald brings evidence of a surge in violent crime – primarily victimizing African Americans – following a rising tide of anti-police sentiment among major media and politicians. Mac Donald channels former FBI Director James Comey in claiming that the fear of false accusation has caused police departments to dial back the "proactive policing" that has been credited with reducing past violent crime waves. Her speeches on college campuses have been shut down by the usual suspects (student mobs inflamed by the "threat" of a free exchange of ideas) leaving the strongest counter-counter-narratives to Mac Donald's counter-narrative unexpressed. Mac Donald joins the show to defend the police from unsupported charges of racial bias, and Bob takes calls to test the thesis of *The War on Cops* against a strict interpretation of the Constitution's civil liberty guarantees.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/324122211How the EPA Violated the Clean Air ActTue, 23 May 2017 16:34:41 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-the-epa-violated-the-clean-air-act
00:52:09TheBobZadekShownoAsk a Californian what’s so special about the Golden State – you'll hear about our beaches, our redwood forests, and our high tech and entertainment hubs. 30 years ago, you'd have heard about our smog. Today's small business owners, however, will tell you about our "unique" environmental regulations. California’s emissions laws are the strictest in the nation, thanks to an exemption from the EPA’s Clean Air Act that allows special vehicle standards, as long as they're at least as strict as federal standards. The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires the EPA to submit new rules to an expert oversight panel, which it failed to do for new recommendations by the California Air Resources Board. While the Air Resources Board may have once been needed to address a crisis, its new rules go too far (modern diesel engines emit far less exhaust than engines from even 15 years ago). Ted Hadzi-Antich is the senior attorney for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future, and is on the team challenging the EPA's violation of the law. He stands for thousands of small businesses that would be devastated by the restrictions on diesel vehicles, while big corporations thrive based on their ability to comply. Ted joined the show to clear the air for us Californians, and to give an overview of the EPA's regulatory overreach nationwide.Ask a Californian what’s so special about the Gol…Ask a Californian what’s so special about the Golden State – you'll hear about our beaches, our redwood forests, and our high tech and entertainment hubs. 30 years ago, you'd have heard about our smog. Today's small business owners, however, will tell you about our "unique" environmental regulations. California’s emissions laws are the strictest in the nation, thanks to an exemption from the EPA’s Clean Air Act that allows special vehicle standards, as long as they're at least as strict as federal standards. The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires the EPA to submit new rules to an expert oversight panel, which it failed to do for new recommendations by the California Air Resources Board. While the Air Resources Board may have once been needed to address a crisis, its new rules go too far (modern diesel engines emit far less exhaust than engines from even 15 years ago). Ted Hadzi-Antich is the senior attorney for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future, and is on the team challenging the EPA's violation of the law. He stands for thousands of small businesses that would be devastated by the restrictions on diesel vehicles, while big corporations thrive based on their ability to comply. Ted joined the show to clear the air for us Californians, and to give an overview of the EPA's regulatory overreach nationwide.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/322739423Juries: The Other Fourth BranchMon, 15 May 2017 15:54:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/juries-the-other-fourth-branch
00:49:40TheBobZadekShownoThis show has repeatedly drawn attention to administrative agencies – the so-called “fourth branch of government” – and their unconstitutional take-over of legislative and judicial functions. Before revisiting this troubling erosion of checks and balances, we have some more hopeful news. Suja Thomas, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois Law School, speaks and writes of a different “fourth branch” that was actually intended by the founders: juries. The American tradition of jury trials, borrowed from English common law, is known around the world as an exceptional feature of our government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Thomas Jefferson said, "The jury is the greatest anchor ever devised by human kind for holding a government to the principles of its constitution." But with just 4% of criminal cases and around 1% of civil cases actually making it to a jury trial, this check on the other three branches of government has clearly been weakened. Bob and his producer, Charlie Deist, discuss her book, *The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Civil, Criminal, and Grand Juries* along with the classic movie, 12 Angry Men, and the controversial idea of jury nullification.This show has repeatedly drawn attention to admin…This show has repeatedly drawn attention to administrative agencies – the so-called “fourth branch of government” – and their unconstitutional take-over of legislative and judicial functions. Before revisiting this troubling erosion of checks and balances, we have some more hopeful news. Suja Thomas, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois Law School, speaks and writes of a different “fourth branch” that was actually intended by the founders: juries. The American tradition of jury trials, borrowed from English common law, is known around the world as an exceptional feature of our government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Thomas Jefferson said, "The jury is the greatest anchor ever devised by human kind for holding a government to the principles of its constitution." But with just 4% of criminal cases and around 1% of civil cases actually making it to a jury trial, this check on the other three branches of government has clearly been weakened. Bob and his producer, Charlie Deist, discuss her book, *The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Civil, Criminal, and Grand Juries* along with the classic movie, 12 Angry Men, and the controversial idea of jury nullification.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/320375949Opioids and the Agony of the American Health Care ActMon, 01 May 2017 19:13:02 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/opioids-and-the-agony-of-the-american-health-care-act
00:47:41TheBobZadekShownoRonald Reagan once quipped that the 9 most terrifying words are “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” With the Trump administration’s recent announcement of its plan to crack down on the pain pill epidemic, we may soon grow to fear the words “I’m from the federal opioid commission, and I’m here to help.” Meanwhile, the Republicans first stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare revealed a fundamental lack of seriousness. The failed American Health Care Act retained the central mandates from Obamacare that are leading to the “death spiral” of growing costs and shrinking options for insurance customers. If all of this bad news is giving you a headache, you’ll want to be sure to listen to this show. Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a general surgeon and regular guest on The Bob Zadek Show, helps Bob dissect the unintended consequences of government intervention in the sacred relationship between doctor and patient. In Arizona, where Dr. Singer practices, limits on prescription pain medication have already made it harder to optimally assist patients recovering from surgery. As government takes over greater control of the healthcare industry, we can expect less of a role for doctor discretion, and more decisions being made by bureaucrats without our best interests in mind.Ronald Reagan once quipped that the 9 most terrif…Ronald Reagan once quipped that the 9 most terrifying words are “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” With the Trump administration’s recent announcement of its plan to crack down on the pain pill epidemic, we may soon grow to fear the words “I’m from the federal opioid commission, and I’m here to help.” Meanwhile, the Republicans first stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare revealed a fundamental lack of seriousness. The failed American Health Care Act retained the central mandates from Obamacare that are leading to the “death spiral” of growing costs and shrinking options for insurance customers. If all of this bad news is giving you a headache, you’ll want to be sure to listen to this show. Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a general surgeon and regular guest on The Bob Zadek Show, helps Bob dissect the unintended consequences of government intervention in the sacred relationship between doctor and patient. In Arizona, where Dr. Singer practices, limits on prescription pain medication have already made it harder to optimally assist patients recovering from surgery. As government takes over greater control of the healthcare industry, we can expect less of a role for doctor discretion, and more decisions being made by bureaucrats without our best interests in mind.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/319269716Venezuela Down the Drain with Fergus HodgsonMon, 24 Apr 2017 18:35:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/venezuela-down-the-drain-with-fergus-hodgson
00:47:25TheBobZadekShownoIt's rarely good news when Latin American politics makes headlines. For those who haven't been monitoring the situation in Venezuela, the "chavista" revolution that began in the 90’s has blossomed into a full-blown meltdown. Think 20th-century socialism was bad? Wait until you hear about Hugo-Chavez-inspired “21st-century socialism,” complete with hyperinflation, widespread famine, and narco-trafficking leaders bent on leading the country further into ruin. Chavez may be gone, but his legacy of misery lives on. Fergus Hodgson, founder of Antigua International, is a prolific writer and global citizen who has been observing Venezuelan politics for years, and has spent time in numerous Latin American countries. Fergus believes we must examine the underlying ideals of revolution in Latin America to understand why the situation is so desperate. Many Venezuelans are seeing through Nicolas Maduro’s failed policies, but the United Socialist Party of Venezuela is clinging to the dictatorship and blocking democratic paths to reform. With protests growing in size and intensity, history is being written.It's rarely good news when Latin American politic…It's rarely good news when Latin American politics makes headlines. For those who haven't been monitoring the situation in Venezuela, the "chavista" revolution that began in the 90’s has blossomed into a full-blown meltdown. Think 20th-century socialism was bad? Wait until you hear about Hugo-Chavez-inspired “21st-century socialism,” complete with hyperinflation, widespread famine, and narco-trafficking leaders bent on leading the country further into ruin. Chavez may be gone, but his legacy of misery lives on. Fergus Hodgson, founder of Antigua International, is a prolific writer and global citizen who has been observing Venezuelan politics for years, and has spent time in numerous Latin American countries. Fergus believes we must examine the underlying ideals of revolution in Latin America to understand why the situation is so desperate. Many Venezuelans are seeing through Nicolas Maduro’s failed policies, but the United Socialist Party of Venezuela is clinging to the dictatorship and blocking democratic paths to reform. With protests growing in size and intensity, history is being written.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/318116330Whose Free Speech? Our Free Speech!Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:36:17 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/whose-free-speech-our-free-speech
00:47:29TheBobZadekShownoLast week, Andrei Illarionov warned us about the subtle disinformation tactics the Russian government uses to undermine trust in institutions like democracy and the rule of law. Accordingly, there has never been a greater need to educate the next generation in the founding principles of our country and its 240 year-old Constitution. Kevin Shaw was doing his part, handing out Spanish-language constitutions to his fellow community college students at Pierce College in Los Angeles, when a campus administrator informed him that he would have to relocate to a 616-square-foot “Free Speech Zone.” Shaw knew his rights, and got in touch with the only organization that knows how to fight back: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Since FIRE filed a lawsuit against the LA Community College School District, the L.A. Times has come out with an editorial in support of Shaw and his right to free speech at Pierce. Marieke Tuthill-Beck Coon is an attorney with FIRE, who will join the show this Sunday to discuss the case. Assuming they win the lawsuit, FIRE will be one step closer to its goal in the “Million Voices” litigation campaign to free one million student voices from unconstitutional speech codes nationwide. One big question looms: will these voices exercise their freedom of speech to help preserve the Republic?Last week, Andrei Illarionov warned us about the …Last week, Andrei Illarionov warned us about the subtle disinformation tactics the Russian government uses to undermine trust in institutions like democracy and the rule of law. Accordingly, there has never been a greater need to educate the next generation in the founding principles of our country and its 240 year-old Constitution. Kevin Shaw was doing his part, handing out Spanish-language constitutions to his fellow community college students at Pierce College in Los Angeles, when a campus administrator informed him that he would have to relocate to a 616-square-foot “Free Speech Zone.” Shaw knew his rights, and got in touch with the only organization that knows how to fight back: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Since FIRE filed a lawsuit against the LA Community College School District, the L.A. Times has come out with an editorial in support of Shaw and his right to free speech at Pierce. Marieke Tuthill-Beck Coon is an attorney with FIRE, who will join the show this Sunday to discuss the case. Assuming they win the lawsuit, FIRE will be one step closer to its goal in the “Million Voices” litigation campaign to free one million student voices from unconstitutional speech codes nationwide. One big question looms: will these voices exercise their freedom of speech to help preserve the Republic?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/317014081Russia Today (Yesterday & Tomorrow)Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:18:03 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/russia-today-yesterday-tomorrow
00:47:42TheBobZadekShownoSome viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as the beginning of “The End of History.” The U.S. and its allies, it seemed, were ushering in an era of global liberal democracy. Today's headlines remind us that history is not over. Russia's aggressive imperialism in Ukraine and its meddling in the Middle East have put it back at center stage. The last 25 years of economic history in Russia are the backdrop to this foreign policy challenge to the West – a time in which the old guard “nomenklatura” gave up on the Soviet experiment and transferred economic ownership to a new set of political elites. This wasn’t anyone’s idea of a smooth transition to an independent democratic regime, but many free-market economists (including Milton Friedman) gladly offered advice on how to jumpstart Russia’s stagnant economy. Andrei Illarionov also served as an early advisor to President Putin – counseling sound monetary and fiscal policy – but resigned when it became clear how the new government was being run. Now a Senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and a key contributor to the Human Freedom Index, Andrei recently participated in a Cato symposium on what went wrong. He joins the show to describe the economic and political inner workings of the Putin government and the Russian oligarchy. What does economic freedom have to do with political freedom and foreign policy interventionism? A whole lot, it turns out.Some viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as the b…Some viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as the beginning of “The End of History.” The U.S. and its allies, it seemed, were ushering in an era of global liberal democracy. Today's headlines remind us that history is not over. Russia's aggressive imperialism in Ukraine and its meddling in the Middle East have put it back at center stage. The last 25 years of economic history in Russia are the backdrop to this foreign policy challenge to the West – a time in which the old guard “nomenklatura” gave up on the Soviet experiment and transferred economic ownership to a new set of political elites. This wasn’t anyone’s idea of a smooth transition to an independent democratic regime, but many free-market economists (including Milton Friedman) gladly offered advice on how to jumpstart Russia’s stagnant economy. Andrei Illarionov also served as an early advisor to President Putin – counseling sound monetary and fiscal policy – but resigned when it became clear how the new government was being run. Now a Senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and a key contributor to the Human Freedom Index, Andrei recently participated in a Cato symposium on what went wrong. He joins the show to describe the economic and political inner workings of the Putin government and the Russian oligarchy. What does economic freedom have to do with political freedom and foreign policy interventionism? A whole lot, it turns out.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/314753681The Gorsuch Hearings with Ilya ShapiroMon, 27 Mar 2017 20:09:35 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-gorsuch-hearings-with-ilya-shapiro
00:52:28TheBobZadekShownoFollowing Justice Scalia's death last year, Republicans took a gamble with their #NoHearingsNoVote strategy, refusing to confirm any Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of the election year. Ilya Shapiro, Editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, defended this strategy on the show last May on the principle that the election should serve as a referendum on who would nominate the pivotal 9th member to the divided court. In something of a double surprise, Trump was elected, and almost immediately made good on the promise to select a judge from his list of 21 potential nominees. Since the start of Neil Gorsuch's Senate confirmation hearings, Shapiro has been on a media blitz, cutting through the "Kabuki theater" and interpreting the exchanges between the mild-mannered Colorado judge and his senatorial inquisitors (both friendly and unfriendly). He returns to examine how the rest of the process is likely to unfold, in light of Senator Chuck Schumer's promise to filibuster. Bob and Ilya will also discuss what it means to be a judge "in the mold of Antonin Scalia," and how the founders' original intent still applies to the changed circumstances of modern times.Following Justice Scalia's death last year, Repub…Following Justice Scalia's death last year, Republicans took a gamble with their #NoHearingsNoVote strategy, refusing to confirm any Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of the election year. Ilya Shapiro, Editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, defended this strategy on the show last May on the principle that the election should serve as a referendum on who would nominate the pivotal 9th member to the divided court. In something of a double surprise, Trump was elected, and almost immediately made good on the promise to select a judge from his list of 21 potential nominees. Since the start of Neil Gorsuch's Senate confirmation hearings, Shapiro has been on a media blitz, cutting through the "Kabuki theater" and interpreting the exchanges between the mild-mannered Colorado judge and his senatorial inquisitors (both friendly and unfriendly). He returns to examine how the rest of the process is likely to unfold, in light of Senator Chuck Schumer's promise to filibuster. Bob and Ilya will also discuss what it means to be a judge "in the mold of Antonin Scalia," and how the founders' original intent still applies to the changed circumstances of modern times.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/313490287Close the Department of EducationMon, 20 Mar 2017 20:28:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/close-the-department-of-education
00:47:46TheBobZadekShownoLast month, Senate Democrats fell a single vote short of blocking the nomination of Betsy Devos to head the Department of Education. This revealed not only an unwise expenditure of political capital, but also the undue influence of teacher unions over the Party apparatus. While seemingly more controversial picks like Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Secretary of State Rex Tillerson glided through their hearings, it was Devos who became “Public Enemy #1.” Some perceive her support of educational choice as heralding a demotion of public schools and the unions that uphold their sacred status. Others argue that Devos is unqualified for a top government office, to which libertarians have been quick to suggest a clever alternative: why not shut down the Department of Education altogether? Lisa Snell, director of education and child welfare for Reason Foundation, joins the show to give an update on state-based experiments in educational choice. Bob will also discuss the surprisingly bipartisan argument for ending the $70 billion a year behemoth. Do you or a loved one have children trapped in government schools, with nowhere else to turn?Last month, Senate Democrats fell a single vote s…Last month, Senate Democrats fell a single vote short of blocking the nomination of Betsy Devos to head the Department of Education. This revealed not only an unwise expenditure of political capital, but also the undue influence of teacher unions over the Party apparatus. While seemingly more controversial picks like Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Secretary of State Rex Tillerson glided through their hearings, it was Devos who became “Public Enemy #1.” Some perceive her support of educational choice as heralding a demotion of public schools and the unions that uphold their sacred status. Others argue that Devos is unqualified for a top government office, to which libertarians have been quick to suggest a clever alternative: why not shut down the Department of Education altogether? Lisa Snell, director of education and child welfare for Reason Foundation, joins the show to give an update on state-based experiments in educational choice. Bob will also discuss the surprisingly bipartisan argument for ending the $70 billion a year behemoth. Do you or a loved one have children trapped in government schools, with nowhere else to turn?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/312191787Jonathan Bydlak on Spending vs. TaxationMon, 13 Mar 2017 18:55:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jonathan-bydlak-on-spending-vs-taxation
00:47:40TheBobZadekShownoTaxation watchdogs like Grover Norquist have sought to hold politicians accountable to small-government philosophy using “starve the beast” logic, i.e., assuming that a lower level of taxation will force government to shrink its big-spending agenda. However, in an age of money printing and short-sighted thinking, merely arithmetic constraints like a balanced budget have been brushed aside. Jonathan Bydlak of the Institute to Reduce Spending and the Coalition to Reduce Spending takes a different approach to accountability, channelling Milton Friedman’s aphorism, “To spend is to tax.” Want to know who’s really responsible for your looming IRS bill? Bydlak urges citizens to look at how much spending their representatives are voting for. The next time a Republican politician tells you to read his lips, be sure to check his rhetoric against his voting record, using SpendingTracker.org – a new project of the Institute to Reduce Spending that uses big data to rank the worst culprits (the “spenders”) and allows for comparison with the relatively virtuous “savers.” Unsurprisingly, you’ll find “Rs” at the tops of both the "spender" and "saver" lists. Jonathan returns to the show to explain how this new tool can increase government accountability where it really matters.Taxation watchdogs like Grover Norquist have soug…Taxation watchdogs like Grover Norquist have sought to hold politicians accountable to small-government philosophy using “starve the beast” logic, i.e., assuming that a lower level of taxation will force government to shrink its big-spending agenda. However, in an age of money printing and short-sighted thinking, merely arithmetic constraints like a balanced budget have been brushed aside. Jonathan Bydlak of the Institute to Reduce Spending and the Coalition to Reduce Spending takes a different approach to accountability, channelling Milton Friedman’s aphorism, “To spend is to tax.” Want to know who’s really responsible for your looming IRS bill? Bydlak urges citizens to look at how much spending their representatives are voting for. The next time a Republican politician tells you to read his lips, be sure to check his rhetoric against his voting record, using SpendingTracker.org – a new project of the Institute to Reduce Spending that uses big data to rank the worst culprits (the “spenders”) and allows for comparison with the relatively virtuous “savers.” Unsurprisingly, you’ll find “Rs” at the tops of both the "spender" and "saver" lists. Jonathan returns to the show to explain how this new tool can increase government accountability where it really matters.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/309818441Debunking Inequality Myths with Ed ConardMon, 27 Feb 2017 17:47:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/debunking-inequality-myths-with-ed-conard
00:47:37TheBobZadekShownoMark Twain is often quoted as having said, “It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Ironically, there is no evidence Twain ever said or wrote this line, but we can still reflect on its implications for today’s most contentious economic debates. In the case of rising economic inequality, conventional wisdom (coupled with noble motives) has produced policies that hurt the very people they are intended to help: the poor and middle class. Ed Conard – founding partner at Bain Capital and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute – takes aim at what he sees as a wrong-headed redistributionist mindset in his latest best-selling book, The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class (Penguin). Conard goes beyond an apology for "the 1%" in explaining the real drivers of persistent poverty and relative stagnation of the American middle class. Though counter-intuitive, his insights are essential to improving policy, and the uncertain economic outlook. Conard joins to the show to help listeners understand the economic landscape like never before.Mark Twain is often quoted as having said, “It’s …Mark Twain is often quoted as having said, “It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Ironically, there is no evidence Twain ever said or wrote this line, but we can still reflect on its implications for today’s most contentious economic debates. In the case of rising economic inequality, conventional wisdom (coupled with noble motives) has produced policies that hurt the very people they are intended to help: the poor and middle class. Ed Conard – founding partner at Bain Capital and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute – takes aim at what he sees as a wrong-headed redistributionist mindset in his latest best-selling book, The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class (Penguin). Conard goes beyond an apology for "the 1%" in explaining the real drivers of persistent poverty and relative stagnation of the American middle class. Though counter-intuitive, his insights are essential to improving policy, and the uncertain economic outlook. Conard joins to the show to help listeners understand the economic landscape like never before.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/308691488Small Business vs. The 4th Branch of GovernmentMon, 20 Feb 2017 18:20:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/small-business-vs-the-4th-branch-of-government
00:47:18TheBobZadekShownoIn the waning days of Obama’s presidency, Sam Batkins of the American Action Forum brought to our attention the record number of so-called “midnight regulations” being implemented by administrative agencies like the EPA. This stealthy (and costly) form of executive lawmaking bypasses the traditional legislative process and erodes the checks and balances so vital to a free republic. Luke Wake (a Staff Attorney for the National Federation of Independent Business) takes us under the hood of the emerging “Fourth Branch” of government to inspect its inner workings. Wake’s message is simple and should be uncontroversial: giving the public a voice is a moral imperative of a liberal democratic system. Whereas the legislature consists of elected officials engaged in open debate, administrative agencies are made up of unelected bureaucrats who can quietly alter the interpretations of laws without the usual required period of public notice-and-comment. As usual, it’s small businesses who take the greatest hit in their struggles with Kafkaesque bureaucracy. The result: alienation, existential anxiety, and absurdity.In the waning days of Obama’s presidency, Sam Bat…In the waning days of Obama’s presidency, Sam Batkins of the American Action Forum brought to our attention the record number of so-called “midnight regulations” being implemented by administrative agencies like the EPA. This stealthy (and costly) form of executive lawmaking bypasses the traditional legislative process and erodes the checks and balances so vital to a free republic. Luke Wake (a Staff Attorney for the National Federation of Independent Business) takes us under the hood of the emerging “Fourth Branch” of government to inspect its inner workings. Wake’s message is simple and should be uncontroversial: giving the public a voice is a moral imperative of a liberal democratic system. Whereas the legislature consists of elected officials engaged in open debate, administrative agencies are made up of unelected bureaucrats who can quietly alter the interpretations of laws without the usual required period of public notice-and-comment. As usual, it’s small businesses who take the greatest hit in their struggles with Kafkaesque bureaucracy. The result: alienation, existential anxiety, and absurdity.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/307548808Floating Island Project: French PolynesiaMon, 13 Feb 2017 18:42:50 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/floating-island-project-french-polynesia
00:47:28TheBobZadekShownoWhen we last heard from Joe Quirk – author and “Seavangelist” for The Seasteading Institute – his visions of humanity’s oceanic future may have seemed remote to the some listeners. That, however, was in 2015. After a dizzying election year, during which all grounds for predicting the future were cast into doubt, the seasteading concept of floating free cities sounds entirely reasonable, and at least as likely as California's nascent secession scheme. Joe joins the show this Sunday after a successful diplomatic trip to French Polynesia, which led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in San Francisco last month between the Institute and the French Polynesian government. Reason’s Brian Doherty calls it an “agreement to come to an agreement” regarding the creation of a seazone in Tahitian waters with a “unique governing framework”, where the first aquapreneurs can begin seasteading as early as 2018. Is this the dawning of a Blue Revolution? Bob finds out when it will be time to ready his liveaboard yacht, The Laissez Faire, for a voyage in the near future.When we last heard from Joe Quirk – author and “S…When we last heard from Joe Quirk – author and “Seavangelist” for The Seasteading Institute – his visions of humanity’s oceanic future may have seemed remote to the some listeners. That, however, was in 2015. After a dizzying election year, during which all grounds for predicting the future were cast into doubt, the seasteading concept of floating free cities sounds entirely reasonable, and at least as likely as California's nascent secession scheme. Joe joins the show this Sunday after a successful diplomatic trip to French Polynesia, which led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in San Francisco last month between the Institute and the French Polynesian government. Reason’s Brian Doherty calls it an “agreement to come to an agreement” regarding the creation of a seazone in Tahitian waters with a “unique governing framework”, where the first aquapreneurs can begin seasteading as early as 2018. Is this the dawning of a Blue Revolution? Bob finds out when it will be time to ready his liveaboard yacht, The Laissez Faire, for a voyage in the near future.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/306593507*Crossroads for Liberty* with William Watkins Jr.Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:21:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/crossroads-for-liberty-with-william-watkins-jr
00:47:14TheBobZadekShownoLatter-day patriots often speak of the U.S. Constitution as if it's sacred scripture – the wisdom of ages, revealed to men of letters through the divine faculties of reason. Although this makes for a good story, Bob and past guests have poked holes in that narrative, and revealed how certain compromises required for ratification were a bridge too far for some of the wisest Founding Fathers. The skeptics, known as the anti-federalists, worried that the limited powers outlined in the Articles of Confederation were not circumscribed clearly enough in the new constitution. Seeing the end result of these compromises – a too-powerful federal government – we must give credit to the anti-Federalists. William J. Watkins Jr., a research fellow at the Independent Institute and author of a new book, Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America's First Constitution, says we should go a step further and seek the reforms they sought, as previewed in the Articles of Confederation. Widely viewed as a failure for granting states too much power, the short-lived Articles may be ripe for a revival, as Americans tire of a president who acts like a King, a congress removed from the people, and a judiciary that legislates from the bench. Join Bob and William as they discuss the relevance of anti-federalist ideals to current events, from Trump's executive orders to California’s new secession movement.Latter-day patriots often speak of the U.S. Const…Latter-day patriots often speak of the U.S. Constitution as if it's sacred scripture – the wisdom of ages, revealed to men of letters through the divine faculties of reason. Although this makes for a good story, Bob and past guests have poked holes in that narrative, and revealed how certain compromises required for ratification were a bridge too far for some of the wisest Founding Fathers. The skeptics, known as the anti-federalists, worried that the limited powers outlined in the Articles of Confederation were not circumscribed clearly enough in the new constitution. Seeing the end result of these compromises – a too-powerful federal government – we must give credit to the anti-Federalists. William J. Watkins Jr., a research fellow at the Independent Institute and author of a new book, Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America's First Constitution, says we should go a step further and seek the reforms they sought, as previewed in the Articles of Confederation. Widely viewed as a failure for granting states too much power, the short-lived Articles may be ripe for a revival, as Americans tire of a president who acts like a King, a congress removed from the people, and a judiciary that legislates from the bench. Join Bob and William as they discuss the relevance of anti-federalist ideals to current events, from Trump's executive orders to California’s new secession movement.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/304168484The Return of Big Spending Republicans?Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:40:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-return-of-big-spending-republicans
00:47:49TheBobZadekShownoUnder President Obama, Republicans grew accustomed to their role opposing the prevailing winds of Big Government. Apparently the fastest way to turn conservative hawks into libertarian doves is to elect a national security hawk and Democrat as president. Now, the Right’s small-government rhetoric will be put to several key tests. Chief among them is whether they will bring military and entitlement spending under control, or let the national debt grow to even more unsustainable levels. Ivan Eland (Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute) spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, and served as Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office; he knows a national security threat when he sees one. He joins Bob to point out the elephant in the room – one that's not going anywhere just because of the new “elephant” in the oval office. Eland identifies the United States’ precarious fiscal situation as the single greatest threat to our security, citing retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen as one authority who can read the writing on the wall. President Trump may talk a big game when it comes to cutting wasteful military spending, but will he keep his promises to scale back U.S. intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere?Under President Obama, Republicans grew accustome…Under President Obama, Republicans grew accustomed to their role opposing the prevailing winds of Big Government. Apparently the fastest way to turn conservative hawks into libertarian doves is to elect a national security hawk and Democrat as president. Now, the Right’s small-government rhetoric will be put to several key tests. Chief among them is whether they will bring military and entitlement spending under control, or let the national debt grow to even more unsustainable levels. Ivan Eland (Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute) spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, and served as Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office; he knows a national security threat when he sees one. He joins Bob to point out the elephant in the room – one that's not going anywhere just because of the new “elephant” in the oval office. Eland identifies the United States’ precarious fiscal situation as the single greatest threat to our security, citing retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen as one authority who can read the writing on the wall. President Trump may talk a big game when it comes to cutting wasteful military spending, but will he keep his promises to scale back U.S. intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/303044812Questions for Every Thinking PersonMon, 16 Jan 2017 22:26:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/questions-for-every-thinking-person
00:47:37TheBobZadekShownoWith the inauguration of President-elect Trump coming later this week, citizens of the United States have developed radically divergent expectations for the next four years. Those who enthusiastically pulled the lever for Trump see a man who can “Make America Great Again” with policies prioritizing domestic interests, while many others fear that he will roll back the progressive, big-government victories of the last eight years. However, the two camps may share more in common than they realize. Both, after all, view government as a primary force to manipulate industries and individual actions to improve outcomes. Dr. Tom Palmer, executive vice president for international programs at the Atlas Network, has an alternative way of looking at things. His new book, “Self Control or State Control? You Decide,” goes beyond mere ideology to questions that every thinking person should be asking. His essays (among several others featured in the book) speak to the importance of personal responsibility to freedom, and offer both a historical and practical perspective to support the central conclusion: if you seek self-determination, then you must also strive for self-control.With the inauguration of President-elect Trump co…With the inauguration of President-elect Trump coming later this week, citizens of the United States have developed radically divergent expectations for the next four years. Those who enthusiastically pulled the lever for Trump see a man who can “Make America Great Again” with policies prioritizing domestic interests, while many others fear that he will roll back the progressive, big-government victories of the last eight years. However, the two camps may share more in common than they realize. Both, after all, view government as a primary force to manipulate industries and individual actions to improve outcomes. Dr. Tom Palmer, executive vice president for international programs at the Atlas Network, has an alternative way of looking at things. His new book, “Self Control or State Control? You Decide,” goes beyond mere ideology to questions that every thinking person should be asking. His essays (among several others featured in the book) speak to the importance of personal responsibility to freedom, and offer both a historical and practical perspective to support the central conclusion: if you seek self-determination, then you must also strive for self-control.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/301718561Midnight Regulations at the End of the Obama AdministrationMon, 09 Jan 2017 20:12:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/midnight-regulations-at-the-end-of-the-obama-administration
00:47:23TheBobZadekShownoLibertarians constantly warn partisans of both sides to be wary of expanding executive power. With each changing of the guard, the ascendant party seems to suffer a collective amnesia in its push to grant the president ever greater authority to enact their preferred agenda. Republicans and Democrats alike neglect the fact that giving power to “Leviathan” works like a ratchet: it only moves in one direction. In the waning hours of President Obama’s lame duck term, his administration is rushing to pass hundreds of new regulations which will saddle the nation well beyond his formal exit from office. Sam Batkins, Director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, is putting a spotlight on the costs of this “midnight regulation.” His research shows how this is problem is getting worse with each out-going administration. Batkins joins Bob to review that latest round of administrative lawmaking, with the EPA leading General Obama’s “last stand” – battling to the end for efficiency standards for every imaginable machine and appliance. To paraphrase George Orwell, if you want to picture the future, imagine a fluorescent lamp stamping on a human face – forever.Libertarians constantly warn partisans of both si…Libertarians constantly warn partisans of both sides to be wary of expanding executive power. With each changing of the guard, the ascendant party seems to suffer a collective amnesia in its push to grant the president ever greater authority to enact their preferred agenda. Republicans and Democrats alike neglect the fact that giving power to “Leviathan” works like a ratchet: it only moves in one direction. In the waning hours of President Obama’s lame duck term, his administration is rushing to pass hundreds of new regulations which will saddle the nation well beyond his formal exit from office. Sam Batkins, Director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, is putting a spotlight on the costs of this “midnight regulation.” His research shows how this is problem is getting worse with each out-going administration. Batkins joins Bob to review that latest round of administrative lawmaking, with the EPA leading General Obama’s “last stand” – battling to the end for efficiency standards for every imaginable machine and appliance. To paraphrase George Orwell, if you want to picture the future, imagine a fluorescent lamp stamping on a human face – forever.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/298656800Alex Nowrasteh on Trump, Immigration, and Prop. 187Mon, 19 Dec 2016 19:05:58 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/alex-nowrasteh-on-trump-immigration-and-prop-187
00:46:54TheBobZadekShownoAfter campaigning on a platform to crack down on illegal immigration, President Elect Trump is now facing a tall order. In enforcing his proposed policies, he will find himself at odds with many state and local governments, which have crafted their own policies in lieu of Congress’s failure to enact immigration reform. Although the issue could be largely resolved with Bob’s preferred laissez-faire approach – to “Let Them All In” – alas, this idea is not popular with everyone. In 1994, Governor Pete Wilson acted on anxieties in the state of California to promote and pass Proposition 187 – aka the “Save Our State Initiative – which would have prevented undocumented immigrants from accessing non-emergency state services, such as public education. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute writes that this policy (in addition to being ruled unconstitutional several years later) had the unintended consequence of turning California “Blue” (i.e., majority Democrat). Prior to 1994, the hispanic vote split roughly 50-50 among Democrats and Republicans. Afterwards, California steadily swung to the left, as the GOP came to be known as the anti-immigrant party. Alex returns to the show to explain how Republicans went astray, and to offer a history lesson on political parties that ushered their downfall through misguided nativist platforms. They will also discuss why Trump's proposed policies would be a disaster for the Republic, if they can be implemented at all.After campaigning on a platform to crack down on …After campaigning on a platform to crack down on illegal immigration, President Elect Trump is now facing a tall order. In enforcing his proposed policies, he will find himself at odds with many state and local governments, which have crafted their own policies in lieu of Congress’s failure to enact immigration reform. Although the issue could be largely resolved with Bob’s preferred laissez-faire approach – to “Let Them All In” – alas, this idea is not popular with everyone. In 1994, Governor Pete Wilson acted on anxieties in the state of California to promote and pass Proposition 187 – aka the “Save Our State Initiative – which would have prevented undocumented immigrants from accessing non-emergency state services, such as public education. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute writes that this policy (in addition to being ruled unconstitutional several years later) had the unintended consequence of turning California “Blue” (i.e., majority Democrat). Prior to 1994, the hispanic vote split roughly 50-50 among Democrats and Republicans. Afterwards, California steadily swung to the left, as the GOP came to be known as the anti-immigrant party. Alex returns to the show to explain how Republicans went astray, and to offer a history lesson on political parties that ushered their downfall through misguided nativist platforms. They will also discuss why Trump's proposed policies would be a disaster for the Republic, if they can be implemented at all.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/298654274Casey Given on Young Voices for LibertyMon, 19 Dec 2016 18:47:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/casey-given-on-young-voices-for-liberty
00:47:50TheBobZadekShownoCasey Given is a man on a mission. Ever since founding the UC Berkeley chapter of Students for Liberty in 2009, he has worked tirelessly to advance “a free academy and a free society” – writing and organizing on behalf of the libertarian minority on college campuses across the country. Now, as Director of Young Voices, an initiative of international nonprofit Students for Liberty, Casey helps students and young professionals jumpstart their careers as classically liberal pundits, and compete with the dominant progressive liberalism espoused by millennials. Young Voices recently published a collection of 13 essays that bodes well for the future of liberty in our lifetime (A Future for Millennials: Policies that Can Restore Prosperity). Reminiscent of Milton Friedman's classic *Free to Choose,* A Future for Millennials renews the case for using the power of the market to solve the most pressing issues of 2016. Casey joins Bob to talk about what is on younger people’s minds, and how the Young Voices network is penetrating the thick fog of ideological conformism on college campuses and in the mainstream media.Casey Given is a man on a mission. Ever since fou…Casey Given is a man on a mission. Ever since founding the UC Berkeley chapter of Students for Liberty in 2009, he has worked tirelessly to advance “a free academy and a free society” – writing and organizing on behalf of the libertarian minority on college campuses across the country. Now, as Director of Young Voices, an initiative of international nonprofit Students for Liberty, Casey helps students and young professionals jumpstart their careers as classically liberal pundits, and compete with the dominant progressive liberalism espoused by millennials. Young Voices recently published a collection of 13 essays that bodes well for the future of liberty in our lifetime (A Future for Millennials: Policies that Can Restore Prosperity). Reminiscent of Milton Friedman's classic *Free to Choose,* A Future for Millennials renews the case for using the power of the market to solve the most pressing issues of 2016. Casey joins Bob to talk about what is on younger people’s minds, and how the Young Voices network is penetrating the thick fog of ideological conformism on college campuses and in the mainstream media.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/295165216Baylen Linnekin on *Biting the Hands that Feed Us*Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:13:02 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/baylen-linnekin-on-biting-the-hands-that-feed-us
00:47:53TheBobZadekShownoThe last time Baylen Linnekin joined the show, he had recently helped American farmers secure a major Supreme Court win in the case of Horne v. USDA, in which a raisin farmer Melvin Horne fought back against the federal government’s takings of a portion of his crops for the "National Raisin Reserve". This was a victory to all those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." But the fight for our food freedoms is far from over, as Baylen documents in his new book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (Island Press). As it stands, agencies like the USDA and FDA often enact absurd rules that make our food supply no safer, while limiting options and contributing to mountains of food that Americans already waste each year. Case in point: rules constraining the sale of “ugly” fruits and vegetables in supermarkets. Furthermore, many regulations hinder small, sustainable farms, but are no hurdle for Big Agriculture, which swallows up billions in subsidies only to produce surpluses of crops that end up in landfills due to other bad policies. Baylen returns to the show to argue that while some rules are necessary and beneficial, we must be pickier when it comes to our food laws.The last time Baylen Linnekin joined the show, he…The last time Baylen Linnekin joined the show, he had recently helped American farmers secure a major Supreme Court win in the case of Horne v. USDA, in which a raisin farmer Melvin Horne fought back against the federal government’s takings of a portion of his crops for the "National Raisin Reserve". This was a victory to all those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." But the fight for our food freedoms is far from over, as Baylen documents in his new book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (Island Press). As it stands, agencies like the USDA and FDA often enact absurd rules that make our food supply no safer, while limiting options and contributing to mountains of food that Americans already waste each year. Case in point: rules constraining the sale of “ugly” fruits and vegetables in supermarkets. Furthermore, many regulations hinder small, sustainable farms, but are no hurdle for Big Agriculture, which swallows up billions in subsidies only to produce surpluses of crops that end up in landfills due to other bad policies. Baylen returns to the show to argue that while some rules are necessary and beneficial, we must be pickier when it comes to our food laws.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/291947661Akhilesh Pillalamarri: Does the U.S. Need a Parliament?Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:41:44 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/akhilesh-pillalamarri-does-the-us-need-a-parliament
00:46:32TheBobZadekShownoEvery student of American government learns that the separation of powers is a key component of the checks and balances upholding our democracy. The fact that the president often meets fierce opposition from the legislature is supposed to be a feature – not a bug – of the system. It could even be argued that partisan gridlock, and Washington's inability to "get things done," are positively good things. But with a mounting national debt and innumerable other crises, partisan rancor and division seem to be hindering real reform from happening. Bob fears we will never return to the optimistic America of his youth, and that America may be in decline. His guest this Sunday offers a hopeful solution, borrowing from our friends from across the pond – Akhilesh (Akhi) Pillalamarri argues that Britain's parliamentary system could resolve some of the America's governmental dysfunction. Akhilesh is a journalist, editor, international relations analyst, and historian who writes for The Diplomat and The National Interest magazines. He argues that our presidential system, like others throughout history, has a tendency towards autocracy. Counterintuitively, this is because the president can claim to be doing "the will of the people" in a way that a prime minister elected by parliament cannot. Bob also presents his unique proposal for representative democracy, and take your calls on the future of the republic.Every student of American government learns that …Every student of American government learns that the separation of powers is a key component of the checks and balances upholding our democracy. The fact that the president often meets fierce opposition from the legislature is supposed to be a feature – not a bug – of the system. It could even be argued that partisan gridlock, and Washington's inability to "get things done," are positively good things. But with a mounting national debt and innumerable other crises, partisan rancor and division seem to be hindering real reform from happening. Bob fears we will never return to the optimistic America of his youth, and that America may be in decline. His guest this Sunday offers a hopeful solution, borrowing from our friends from across the pond – Akhilesh (Akhi) Pillalamarri argues that Britain's parliamentary system could resolve some of the America's governmental dysfunction. Akhilesh is a journalist, editor, international relations analyst, and historian who writes for The Diplomat and The National Interest magazines. He argues that our presidential system, like others throughout history, has a tendency towards autocracy. Counterintuitively, this is because the president can claim to be doing "the will of the people" in a way that a prime minister elected by parliament cannot. Bob also presents his unique proposal for representative democracy, and take your calls on the future of the republic.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/289737517John Rothmann: 2016 Election Round-upMon, 24 Oct 2016 15:48:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/john-rothmann-2016-election-round-up
00:47:22TheBobZadekShownoTrump versus Hillary. Four years ago, the prospect of such a face-off would have seemed absurd. Now it's hard to remember what life was like before the non-stop media spectacle. The choice between "R" and "D" has never felt more superficial, yet the stakes have never been higher. The next president will nominate at least one, and probably several Supreme Court justices, leaving a legacy far beyond whatever harm he or she might "accomplish" through their agenda. Trump has promised a nominee in the mold of Antonin Scalia, but can anyone take his words at face value? It was only this Thursday that he acknowledged that he would accept the election results as valid... and only if he wins! This Sunday Bob is privileged to be joined by John Rothmann, a Bay Area radio veteran and expert on American politics, for a round-up discussion of all things Election 2016™. Together, they will try to make sense of the political circus – from the debates, to Supreme Court picks, to the odds of various scenarios unfolding on November 8. Back in simpler times, when Bob was first starting in radio, Rothmann served as an invaluable mentor to him. Rothmann sees Trump as a clear danger, who must be stopped. Bob makes the case that a vote for a third party candidate – *cough* Gary Johnson – is far from a wasted vote. Call them with your questions and comments, this Sunday (8-9am PT), at (424) BOB-SHOW.Trump versus Hillary. Four years ago, the prospec…Trump versus Hillary. Four years ago, the prospect of such a face-off would have seemed absurd. Now it's hard to remember what life was like before the non-stop media spectacle. The choice between "R" and "D" has never felt more superficial, yet the stakes have never been higher. The next president will nominate at least one, and probably several Supreme Court justices, leaving a legacy far beyond whatever harm he or she might "accomplish" through their agenda. Trump has promised a nominee in the mold of Antonin Scalia, but can anyone take his words at face value? It was only this Thursday that he acknowledged that he would accept the election results as valid... and only if he wins! This Sunday Bob is privileged to be joined by John Rothmann, a Bay Area radio veteran and expert on American politics, for a round-up discussion of all things Election 2016™. Together, they will try to make sense of the political circus – from the debates, to Supreme Court picks, to the odds of various scenarios unfolding on November 8. Back in simpler times, when Bob was first starting in radio, Rothmann served as an invaluable mentor to him. Rothmann sees Trump as a clear danger, who must be stopped. Bob makes the case that a vote for a third party candidate – *cough* Gary Johnson – is far from a wasted vote. Call them with your questions and comments, this Sunday (8-9am PT), at (424) BOB-SHOW.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/288878410Alan Axelrod on the National DebtTue, 18 Oct 2016 20:35:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/alan-axelrod-on-the-national-debt
00:45:53TheBobZadekShownoAccording to author and historian Dr. Alan Axelrod, ISIS isn't the greatest threat to American security. Our leaders are. This might sound sensationalist, until you recall that our national debt is quickly approaching $20 trillion, and has already surpassed the total GDP of the United States. This Sunday, Halloween comes early with the scary message Axelrod brings in his new book, *Full Faith and Credit: The National Debt, Taxes, Spending, and the Bankrupting of America.* Axelrod, author of more than 140 books, joins Bob to discuss his sweeping examination of the origins of the U.S. national debt, its beneficiaries, and (hopefully) its possible solutions. Axelrod finds the source of fiscal irresponsibility in the core architecture of the growing "administrative state," in which unelected career bureaucrats carve out fiefdoms, going beyond the powers prescribed by the Constitution. After tracing the gradual rise of the current administrative state, Axelrod devotes special attention to the dangers of the military-industrial-(congressional)-complex, and shows how support for major spending categories transcends partisan divides (as long as the members of congress are "getting theirs").According to author and historian Dr. Alan Axelro…According to author and historian Dr. Alan Axelrod, ISIS isn't the greatest threat to American security. Our leaders are. This might sound sensationalist, until you recall that our national debt is quickly approaching $20 trillion, and has already surpassed the total GDP of the United States. This Sunday, Halloween comes early with the scary message Axelrod brings in his new book, *Full Faith and Credit: The National Debt, Taxes, Spending, and the Bankrupting of America.* Axelrod, author of more than 140 books, joins Bob to discuss his sweeping examination of the origins of the U.S. national debt, its beneficiaries, and (hopefully) its possible solutions. Axelrod finds the source of fiscal irresponsibility in the core architecture of the growing "administrative state," in which unelected career bureaucrats carve out fiefdoms, going beyond the powers prescribed by the Constitution. After tracing the gradual rise of the current administrative state, Axelrod devotes special attention to the dangers of the military-industrial-(congressional)-complex, and shows how support for major spending categories transcends partisan divides (as long as the members of congress are "getting theirs").tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/284763980Trevor Thrall on Millennials' Attitudes on Foreign PolicyMon, 26 Sep 2016 18:12:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/trevor-thrall-on-millennials-attitudes-on-foreign-policy
00:47:44TheBobZadekShownoThe recent 15th anniversary of 9/11 came and went with little ceremony, indicating that the symbolic resonance of the events may be gradually fading. For younger Americans, including some of the "millennial" generation born between 1980 and 1997, the events can hardly be remembered at all. What looms larger in millennials' minds is the War on Terror that has been waged in the wake of the attacks – the botched foreign interventions and erosion and civil liberties at home under the pretext of national security. Trevor Thrall is a professor at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department who has a particular interest in millennials' attitudes toward foreign policy. Last year, Thrall and his colleague Erik Goepner published a paper, Millennials and U.S. Foreign Policy: The next Generation’s Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy and War (and Why They Matter), exploring the impact of events that occurred in millennials' formative years on their perception of different threats and the appropriate response to them today. Does their skepticism about using force abroad mean that we are in good hands, or have the events since 9/11 led the rising generation to underestimate real threats apart from terrorism? Find out , on this week's episode of the Bob Zadek Show.The recent 15th anniversary of 9/11 came and went…The recent 15th anniversary of 9/11 came and went with little ceremony, indicating that the symbolic resonance of the events may be gradually fading. For younger Americans, including some of the "millennial" generation born between 1980 and 1997, the events can hardly be remembered at all. What looms larger in millennials' minds is the War on Terror that has been waged in the wake of the attacks – the botched foreign interventions and erosion and civil liberties at home under the pretext of national security. Trevor Thrall is a professor at George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department who has a particular interest in millennials' attitudes toward foreign policy. Last year, Thrall and his colleague Erik Goepner published a paper, Millennials and U.S. Foreign Policy: The next Generation’s Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy and War (and Why They Matter), exploring the impact of events that occurred in millennials' formative years on their perception of different threats and the appropriate response to them today. Does their skepticism about using force abroad mean that we are in good hands, or have the events since 9/11 led the rising generation to underestimate real threats apart from terrorism? Find out , on this week's episode of the Bob Zadek Show.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/282748385Anthony L. Fisher on Confidential InformantsTue, 13 Sep 2016 18:09:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/anthony-l-fisher-on-confidential-informants
00:47:12TheBobZadekShownoAndrew Sadek was 20 years old when he was caught dealing small amounts of marijuana on his college campus in North Dakota. He was told by law enforcement that he could possibly face up to 40 years in prison, or accept a deal to aid campus drug busts for a time as a confidential informant. Soon after signing on, but before completing the terms of the deal, Andrew went missing; a few days later his body was found, with a gunshot wound to the head, wearing a backpack full of rocks. The law enforcement agency which had assigned Sadek his task not only failed to inform Sadek’s parents of his role as a confidential informant when he went missing, they also dragged their feet in investigating the death (still a mystery). Anthony Fisher, an Associate Editor at Reason Magazine, picked up the story, which has since been covered by 60 Minutes – shining a light on a very shady corner of the U.S. Justice System. Bob welcomes Anthony back on the show this Sunday to discuss the lack of accountability surrounding the use of confidential informants.Andrew Sadek was 20 years old when he was caught …Andrew Sadek was 20 years old when he was caught dealing small amounts of marijuana on his college campus in North Dakota. He was told by law enforcement that he could possibly face up to 40 years in prison, or accept a deal to aid campus drug busts for a time as a confidential informant. Soon after signing on, but before completing the terms of the deal, Andrew went missing; a few days later his body was found, with a gunshot wound to the head, wearing a backpack full of rocks. The law enforcement agency which had assigned Sadek his task not only failed to inform Sadek’s parents of his role as a confidential informant when he went missing, they also dragged their feet in investigating the death (still a mystery). Anthony Fisher, an Associate Editor at Reason Magazine, picked up the story, which has since been covered by 60 Minutes – shining a light on a very shady corner of the U.S. Justice System. Bob welcomes Anthony back on the show this Sunday to discuss the lack of accountability surrounding the use of confidential informants.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/280439159*Equal is Unfair* with Don WatkinsMon, 29 Aug 2016 15:41:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/equal-is-unfair-with-don-watkins
00:47:30TheBobZadekShownoBob and Ayn Rand Institute fellow Don Watkins interpret the American Dream through an objectivist lens, in which opportunity is the result of effort and ability plus freedom, not the redistribution of wealth and political privilege. Watkins, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, dropped out of university to attend business school at night while working full-time during the day. After this, he could have gone to work on Wall Street or a Fortune 500 company, and glided into America’s notorious 1% – only to be vilified by the growing choir of income inequality critics. Watkins' crime in their eyes would not have been fraud, or embezzlement. His “privilege” alone would have been sufficient cause for many to indict him, despite the value created through honest finance, such as increased opportunities for those with low incomes to afford a college education, or buy homes and durable consumer goods. Watkins instead chose to apply his talents to the realm of ideas and the foundation of a free society. In his new book *Equal is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality,* Watkins and his co-author, Yaron Brook (Executive Director of ARI), mount a bold attack on a popular narrative about the injustice of current levels of inequality.Bob and Ayn Rand Institute fellow Don Watkins int…Bob and Ayn Rand Institute fellow Don Watkins interpret the American Dream through an objectivist lens, in which opportunity is the result of effort and ability plus freedom, not the redistribution of wealth and political privilege. Watkins, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, dropped out of university to attend business school at night while working full-time during the day. After this, he could have gone to work on Wall Street or a Fortune 500 company, and glided into America’s notorious 1% – only to be vilified by the growing choir of income inequality critics. Watkins' crime in their eyes would not have been fraud, or embezzlement. His “privilege” alone would have been sufficient cause for many to indict him, despite the value created through honest finance, such as increased opportunities for those with low incomes to afford a college education, or buy homes and durable consumer goods. Watkins instead chose to apply his talents to the realm of ideas and the foundation of a free society. In his new book *Equal is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality,* Watkins and his co-author, Yaron Brook (Executive Director of ARI), mount a bold attack on a popular narrative about the injustice of current levels of inequality.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/279602122Mark Lutter on Proprietary CitiesTue, 23 Aug 2016 23:14:11 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/mark-lutter-on-proprietary-cities
00:48:03TheBobZadekShownoThe George Mason University economics department is known for developing new ideas into influential ideas. The Virginia-based bastion of free market thought has been producing groundbreaking scholarly work for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. Last month, GMU PhD Candidate Mark Lutter defended his thesis, “Three Essays on Proprietary Cities.” His committee included Donald Boudreaux, Tyler Cowen, and Richard Wagner. Lutter’s academic interest in proprietary, or free cities is part of a trend among scholars and thought leaders studying the incentives that drive government decision-makers. If politicians respond to rewards and punishments just like you and I do, shouldn’t we consider giving them a larger stake in the profits and losses of the underlying jurisdiction? A proprietary city, Lutter argues, could achieve this, with tremendous benefits for both the developing and the developed world. He makes a convincing case on his blog, FreeCitiesInitiative.com, and joins Bob to defend the idea that the time for free cities has come. The George Mason University economics department …The George Mason University economics department is known for developing new ideas into influential ideas. The Virginia-based bastion of free market thought has been producing groundbreaking scholarly work for decades, and shows no signs of slowing down. Last month, GMU PhD Candidate Mark Lutter defended his thesis, “Three Essays on Proprietary Cities.” His committee included Donald Boudreaux, Tyler Cowen, and Richard Wagner. Lutter’s academic interest in proprietary, or free cities is part of a trend among scholars and thought leaders studying the incentives that drive government decision-makers. If politicians respond to rewards and punishments just like you and I do, shouldn’t we consider giving them a larger stake in the profits and losses of the underlying jurisdiction? A proprietary city, Lutter argues, could achieve this, with tremendous benefits for both the developing and the developed world. He makes a convincing case on his blog, FreeCitiesInitiative.com, and joins Bob to defend the idea that the time for free cities has come. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/277385826Dr. Jeff Singer on Gary Johnson vs. The Lesser of Two EvilsMon, 08 Aug 2016 18:40:59 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/dr-jeff-singer-on-gary-johnson-vs-the-lesser-of-two-evils
00:57:21TheBobZadekShownoWith just three months to the general election, voters must now come to grips with the grim reality of their choice between the major parties’ presidential candidates. Naturally, the conversations around the “lesser of two evils” have begun, along with the ensuing mental gymnastics by those looking to justify their preference for either Trump or Clinton. There may be a silver lining, however. While former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson may not be the political savior many are hoping for, he is getting a hearing from a large swath of the electorate who otherwise would never have considered backing a third party candidate – let alone a libertarian. Jeff Singer, a general surgeon and libertarian from Arizona, has voted for the lesser of two evils for most of his life – but now he's had enough, and is casting his lot in with Johnson. Is it true that a vote for Johnson is a throwaway, or that it makes a victory of the greater of two evils more likely? Bob and Jeff spend the hour on the intricate question of how one can still vote smart, and on principle, in the unusual times we find ourselves in.With just three months to the general election, v…With just three months to the general election, voters must now come to grips with the grim reality of their choice between the major parties’ presidential candidates. Naturally, the conversations around the “lesser of two evils” have begun, along with the ensuing mental gymnastics by those looking to justify their preference for either Trump or Clinton. There may be a silver lining, however. While former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson may not be the political savior many are hoping for, he is getting a hearing from a large swath of the electorate who otherwise would never have considered backing a third party candidate – let alone a libertarian. Jeff Singer, a general surgeon and libertarian from Arizona, has voted for the lesser of two evils for most of his life – but now he's had enough, and is casting his lot in with Johnson. Is it true that a vote for Johnson is a throwaway, or that it makes a victory of the greater of two evils more likely? Bob and Jeff spend the hour on the intricate question of how one can still vote smart, and on principle, in the unusual times we find ourselves in.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/276360315*If You Can Keep It* with Robin KoernerMon, 01 Aug 2016 18:29:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/if-you-can-keep-it-with-robin-koerner
00:57:18TheBobZadekShownoThis show strives to be an oasis in a media desert of gossip, clickbait, and misinformation. The message from this show's guest is especially helpful for navigating this bleak landscape when you don’t have Bob and his guests to break down the issues. It's rare to find a thinker as well-versed in both the lessons of history and techniques of persuasion as Robin Koerner. A Cambridge-educated native of the UK, Koerner has managed to make a successful career as an observer and activist in American politics. Even more remarkably, he has carved a niche for classical liberal ideas on the pages of the Huffington Post. Most remarkably of all, Koerner recently cleared our nation’s many immigration hurdles to formally join the world’s largest experiment in freedom as a U.S. citizen. But lately, Koerner notes, this experiment isn’t going so well. His new book, If You Can Keep It, answers why few people make the right diagnosis of the sickly politics that keep eroding our liberties. By revealing what’s missing from partisan debates, Koerner teaches us how to persuade (almost) anyone why it’s liberty that they really want – not the various “isms” that always get the most votes. After hearing his outsider’s perspective, you won’t be able to see American politics in the same light.This show strives to be an oasis in a media deser…This show strives to be an oasis in a media desert of gossip, clickbait, and misinformation. The message from this show's guest is especially helpful for navigating this bleak landscape when you don’t have Bob and his guests to break down the issues. It's rare to find a thinker as well-versed in both the lessons of history and techniques of persuasion as Robin Koerner. A Cambridge-educated native of the UK, Koerner has managed to make a successful career as an observer and activist in American politics. Even more remarkably, he has carved a niche for classical liberal ideas on the pages of the Huffington Post. Most remarkably of all, Koerner recently cleared our nation’s many immigration hurdles to formally join the world’s largest experiment in freedom as a U.S. citizen. But lately, Koerner notes, this experiment isn’t going so well. His new book, If You Can Keep It, answers why few people make the right diagnosis of the sickly politics that keep eroding our liberties. By revealing what’s missing from partisan debates, Koerner teaches us how to persuade (almost) anyone why it’s liberty that they really want – not the various “isms” that always get the most votes. After hearing his outsider’s perspective, you won’t be able to see American politics in the same light.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/275182729Christina Sandefur on the Right to Try IniativeSun, 24 Jul 2016 21:04:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/christina-sandefur-on-the-right-to-try-iniative
00:59:05TheBobZadekShownoThere's a wave of state-based reform sweeping the nation, and it's giving hope to thousands of terminally-ill patients. Since just 2014, 31 states have passed so-called "right to try" initiatives, which allow those with incurable and life-threatening illnesses to access potentially life-saving experimental treatments that have not yet been approved by the FDA. Leading this legislative cascade is Arizona's Goldwater Institute. They believe the Food and Drug Administration has been overly paternalistic in making what amounts to an incredibly difficult, yet personal decision, on behalf of all Americans. When early "Phase I" evidence shows a treatment's potential, physicians in Right to Try states are able to take the experimental treatments out of the laboratory in an attempt to save their patients. Christina Sandefur, executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute, is a co-drafter of the Right to Try initiative and has been pivotal in getting these laws passed around the country. She joins Bob to make the case to the remaining 19 states – including California. There's a wave of state-based reform sweeping the…There's a wave of state-based reform sweeping the nation, and it's giving hope to thousands of terminally-ill patients. Since just 2014, 31 states have passed so-called "right to try" initiatives, which allow those with incurable and life-threatening illnesses to access potentially life-saving experimental treatments that have not yet been approved by the FDA. Leading this legislative cascade is Arizona's Goldwater Institute. They believe the Food and Drug Administration has been overly paternalistic in making what amounts to an incredibly difficult, yet personal decision, on behalf of all Americans. When early "Phase I" evidence shows a treatment's potential, physicians in Right to Try states are able to take the experimental treatments out of the laboratory in an attempt to save their patients. Christina Sandefur, executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute, is a co-drafter of the Right to Try initiative and has been pivotal in getting these laws passed around the country. She joins Bob to make the case to the remaining 19 states – including California. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/274274821Dr. Rick Doblin on MAPS and the War on DrugsMon, 18 Jul 2016 20:02:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/dr-rick-doblin-on-maps-and-the-war-on-drugs
00:52:17TheBobZadekShownoDr. Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, joins the show to discuss the history of the War on Drugs, and the efforts to legalize certain scheduled substances through formal FDA approval.
Founded in 1986, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that develops medical, legal, and cultural contexts for people to benefit from the careful uses of psychedelics and marijuana.Dr. Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary…Dr. Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, joins the show to discuss the history of the War on Drugs, and the efforts to legalize certain scheduled substances through formal FDA approval.
Founded in 1986, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that develops medical, legal, and cultural contexts for people to benefit from the careful uses of psychedelics and marijuana.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/273037203The Supreme Court Has Spoken: The Unanimous Decision in U.S. Army Corp of Engineers v. HawkesSun, 10 Jul 2016 17:43:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-supreme-court-has-spoken-the-unanimous-decision-in-us-army-corp-of-engineers-v-hawkes
00:52:07TheBobZadekShownoIn numerous past shows, Bob and his guests have exposed the worrisome growth in executive power taking place through the overreach of administrative agencies. Too often, the courts simply defer to agencies like the EPA, leaving citizens without recourse to challenge the dictates of unelected bureaucrats. Finally, we have a guest with good news to report. In the recent case of U.S. Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes, a landowner (Hawkes) believed that the government was making an overly broad assertion of jurisdiction in claiming that his 160 acre parcel was “wetlands,” subject to federal restrictions under the Clean Water Act. Mark Miller, an attorney with The Pacific Legal Foundation, represented Hawkes in front of the Supreme Court in what turned out to be a resounding victory for property owners everywhere. He joins Bob to discuss the 8-0 decision, reaffirming landowners’ rights to immediate judicial review when issued a “jurisdictional determination” by the Army Corp. In the past, such determinations have put property owners in an impossible situation – having to choose between a costly, years-long permitting process with no guarantee of success, or giving up on their plans for the land’s use altogether.In numerous past shows, Bob and his guests have e…In numerous past shows, Bob and his guests have exposed the worrisome growth in executive power taking place through the overreach of administrative agencies. Too often, the courts simply defer to agencies like the EPA, leaving citizens without recourse to challenge the dictates of unelected bureaucrats. Finally, we have a guest with good news to report. In the recent case of U.S. Army Corp of Engineers v. Hawkes, a landowner (Hawkes) believed that the government was making an overly broad assertion of jurisdiction in claiming that his 160 acre parcel was “wetlands,” subject to federal restrictions under the Clean Water Act. Mark Miller, an attorney with The Pacific Legal Foundation, represented Hawkes in front of the Supreme Court in what turned out to be a resounding victory for property owners everywhere. He joins Bob to discuss the 8-0 decision, reaffirming landowners’ rights to immediate judicial review when issued a “jurisdictional determination” by the Army Corp. In the past, such determinations have put property owners in an impossible situation – having to choose between a costly, years-long permitting process with no guarantee of success, or giving up on their plans for the land’s use altogether.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/272349136F.H. Buckley on *The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America*Tue, 05 Jul 2016 22:14:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/fh-buckley-on-the-way-back-restoring-the-promise-of-america
00:52:31TheBobZadekShownoSensing a wave of populist frustration, the Democratic Party has embraced the narrative of the 99% versus the 1%, and called for a new round of socialist policies. Conservatives, seeing the failures of socialism, have downplayed the severity of inequality, and all but ignored the even greater problem of economic immobility. Mitt Romney, for his part, spoke of the “47%” who would always vote for bigger government to receive the benefits, and he was roundly rejected by voters. Yet both sides may have a point – America does increasingly resemble an aristocracy with a dependent class, stuck in poverty. In his new book, *The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America,* Francis H. Buckley puts a face to the modern inherited aristocracy, which Founders like Thomas Jefferson had hoped to do away with for good. A Professor at George Mason University School of Law, Buckley honestly admits that he is one the “New Class” – those whose education and birthright advantages have enabled them to ride the wave of globalization and technological progress that has gutted the middle class. This gives him a unique vantage point to describe what he sees standing in the way of opportunity and justice for all. Buckley joins Bob to discuss how America lost the promise of economic mobility for the hardworking poor, and how he thinks we can find our way back. While Buckley sees a revolution brewing in the form of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, Bob says, "Not so fast."Sensing a wave of populist frustration, the Democ…Sensing a wave of populist frustration, the Democratic Party has embraced the narrative of the 99% versus the 1%, and called for a new round of socialist policies. Conservatives, seeing the failures of socialism, have downplayed the severity of inequality, and all but ignored the even greater problem of economic immobility. Mitt Romney, for his part, spoke of the “47%” who would always vote for bigger government to receive the benefits, and he was roundly rejected by voters. Yet both sides may have a point – America does increasingly resemble an aristocracy with a dependent class, stuck in poverty. In his new book, *The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America,* Francis H. Buckley puts a face to the modern inherited aristocracy, which Founders like Thomas Jefferson had hoped to do away with for good. A Professor at George Mason University School of Law, Buckley honestly admits that he is one the “New Class” – those whose education and birthright advantages have enabled them to ride the wave of globalization and technological progress that has gutted the middle class. This gives him a unique vantage point to describe what he sees standing in the way of opportunity and justice for all. Buckley joins Bob to discuss how America lost the promise of economic mobility for the hardworking poor, and how he thinks we can find our way back. While Buckley sees a revolution brewing in the form of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, Bob says, "Not so fast."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/271135318Arun Sundararajan on *The Sharing Economy*Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:21:45 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/arun-sundararajan-on-the-sharing-economy
00:52:23TheBobZadekShowno“[T]he future has arrived, well in advance of the policies needed to support it,” says Arun Sundararajan, Professor of Information, Operations and Management Sciences at New York University's Leonard N. Stern School of Business. Nowhere can this phenomenon be seen more clearly than in the rapidly-expanding "sharing economy," made up of digital platforms like Uber and AirBnB, which must battle with regulators in some locales to keep their innovative services running. Sundararajan's new book, The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism (MIT Press), contains everything you need to know – both cause and effect – about the radical disruption that is underway. An academic by trade, Sundararajan blends sociology, economics, technology and political science with a keen intuition to highlight the many tensions of the sharing economy, or as he calls it, "crowd-based capitalism." The sharing economy, he notes, is both capitalist and socialist, market-based and gift-based, and largely unregulated yet governed by complex rules and norms. Arun joins Bob to help listeners think about their place in the emerging landscape. Will we manage to harness these changes to become an "empowered entrepreneurs," or is technology turning us into "disenfranchised drones"?“[T]he future has arrived, well in advance of the…“[T]he future has arrived, well in advance of the policies needed to support it,” says Arun Sundararajan, Professor of Information, Operations and Management Sciences at New York University's Leonard N. Stern School of Business. Nowhere can this phenomenon be seen more clearly than in the rapidly-expanding "sharing economy," made up of digital platforms like Uber and AirBnB, which must battle with regulators in some locales to keep their innovative services running. Sundararajan's new book, The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism (MIT Press), contains everything you need to know – both cause and effect – about the radical disruption that is underway. An academic by trade, Sundararajan blends sociology, economics, technology and political science with a keen intuition to highlight the many tensions of the sharing economy, or as he calls it, "crowd-based capitalism." The sharing economy, he notes, is both capitalist and socialist, market-based and gift-based, and largely unregulated yet governed by complex rules and norms. Arun joins Bob to help listeners think about their place in the emerging landscape. Will we manage to harness these changes to become an "empowered entrepreneurs," or is technology turning us into "disenfranchised drones"?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/270033226A Teacher's Brave Stand Against Her Union: Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry PellMon, 20 Jun 2016 16:14:59 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/a-teachers-brave-stand-against-her-union-rebecca-friedrichs-and-terry-pell
00:52:24TheBobZadekShownoWhen Rebecca Friedrichs first started teaching in Orange County nearly 30 years ago, she was surprised to discover how little recourse her school had to remove poor quality teachers from their posts. For decades, she would do her best to contain her frustration with a system – backed by powerful public sector teacher's unions – that protects inept, long-time insiders (read: tenure) at the expense of students and outstanding young faculty. Finally, an opportunity arose for Friedrichs to become the lead plaintiff in a free speech case against the California Teachers Association, and take a stand against mandatory dues for non-members who oppose the union's practices. Her side appeared on the verge of a landmark Supreme Court victory when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away suddenly – leaving the court divided 4-4, which affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the union. Friedrichs and her attorney, Terry Pell (President of the Center for Individual Rights), join Bob to explain why they are still fighting on behalf of teachers and students to have Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association reheard once a ninth justice is confirmed. The saga of Scalia's Supreme Court vacancy continues on the show of ideas, not attitude.When Rebecca Friedrichs first started teaching in…When Rebecca Friedrichs first started teaching in Orange County nearly 30 years ago, she was surprised to discover how little recourse her school had to remove poor quality teachers from their posts. For decades, she would do her best to contain her frustration with a system – backed by powerful public sector teacher's unions – that protects inept, long-time insiders (read: tenure) at the expense of students and outstanding young faculty. Finally, an opportunity arose for Friedrichs to become the lead plaintiff in a free speech case against the California Teachers Association, and take a stand against mandatory dues for non-members who oppose the union's practices. Her side appeared on the verge of a landmark Supreme Court victory when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away suddenly – leaving the court divided 4-4, which affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the union. Friedrichs and her attorney, Terry Pell (President of the Center for Individual Rights), join Bob to explain why they are still fighting on behalf of teachers and students to have Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association reheard once a ninth justice is confirmed. The saga of Scalia's Supreme Court vacancy continues on the show of ideas, not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/267832977Matthew Feeney on Best Practices for Police Body CamerasMon, 06 Jun 2016 17:31:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/matthew-feeney-on-best-practices-for-police-body-cameras
00:52:24TheBobZadekShownoTechnology is rapidly changing the way law enforcement operates, and as we’ve learned from previous guests, such as Adam Bates on StingRay Surveillance, the change is not always for the better. On the other hand, the recent adoption of body cameras by a growing number of police departments would seem to increase accountability and civility in officer-civilian interactions without much of a downside. Matthew Feeney, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, says the technology – while promising – is not a panacea. The public widely supports the adoption of body cameras, but could there be a risk that new technology is getting ahead of sound policy, and putting our privacy at risk? What appears like a simple criminal justice reform turns out to have multiple complex considerations, including whether or not police can view the footage before submitting a statement. It takes a Cato analyst to explain the nuances of best practices for body cameras. Bob and Matthew discuss how we can get the best of both worlds: keeping police accountable while keeping our privacy too.Technology is rapidly changing the way law enforc…Technology is rapidly changing the way law enforcement operates, and as we’ve learned from previous guests, such as Adam Bates on StingRay Surveillance, the change is not always for the better. On the other hand, the recent adoption of body cameras by a growing number of police departments would seem to increase accountability and civility in officer-civilian interactions without much of a downside. Matthew Feeney, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, says the technology – while promising – is not a panacea. The public widely supports the adoption of body cameras, but could there be a risk that new technology is getting ahead of sound policy, and putting our privacy at risk? What appears like a simple criminal justice reform turns out to have multiple complex considerations, including whether or not police can view the footage before submitting a statement. It takes a Cato analyst to explain the nuances of best practices for body cameras. Bob and Matthew discuss how we can get the best of both worlds: keeping police accountable while keeping our privacy too.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/266660670Ilya Somin on Democracy & Political IgnoranceMon, 30 May 2016 20:08:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-democracy-political-ignorance
00:51:51TheBobZadekShownoThe second edition of Ilya Somin’s *Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter* could not have arrived at a better time. Most of us can sense something wrong with our democracy, but the source of our problems is often overlooked in the face of the symptoms: botched wars, corruption, and political parties that fail to deliver decent, principled candidates. Somin, a Law Professor at George Mason University and contributor to the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog, asks us to consider that the issue may a bit closer to home. Might the problem reside partly in our own ignorance, and the reasonable decision of a majority of voters to live their lives rather than obsess about an unaccountable central government? Somin is not taking aim at “stupid voters” or blaming them for the problems of society, but proposing alternative mechanisms for improving governance that depend less on a perfectly informed citizenry. He joins Bob to explore more realistic correctives to the slide towards idiocracy, including a new spin on federalism in the form of "foot voting."The second edition of Ilya Somin’s *Democracy and…The second edition of Ilya Somin’s *Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter* could not have arrived at a better time. Most of us can sense something wrong with our democracy, but the source of our problems is often overlooked in the face of the symptoms: botched wars, corruption, and political parties that fail to deliver decent, principled candidates. Somin, a Law Professor at George Mason University and contributor to the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog, asks us to consider that the issue may a bit closer to home. Might the problem reside partly in our own ignorance, and the reasonable decision of a majority of voters to live their lives rather than obsess about an unaccountable central government? Somin is not taking aim at “stupid voters” or blaming them for the problems of society, but proposing alternative mechanisms for improving governance that depend less on a perfectly informed citizenry. He joins Bob to explore more realistic correctives to the slide towards idiocracy, including a new spin on federalism in the form of "foot voting."tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/264401270Ilya Shapiro on the Supreme Court in the BalanceMon, 16 May 2016 15:51:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-shapiro-on-the-supreme-court-in-the-balance
00:52:29TheBobZadekShownoLast week, Bob examined how the United States has ended up in a situation that would have frustrated the Framer's intentions, had they seen it coming. The next president will likely hold more authority than was ever supposed to be granted to a single person, by virtue of nominating the ninth judge to a sharply divided “4-4” court. Ilya Shapiro is carefully observing the political chess game around the Supreme Court nomination, and urges Senate Republicans not to hold hearings or a confirmation vote for President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Instead, he says they should wait until after a new president is elected – making the judicial pick the paramount issue in the coming election. Shapiro joins the show to argue that “We, the People” should make the choice of who determines the make-up of the court, with so much on the line. Last week, Bob examined how the United States has…Last week, Bob examined how the United States has ended up in a situation that would have frustrated the Framer's intentions, had they seen it coming. The next president will likely hold more authority than was ever supposed to be granted to a single person, by virtue of nominating the ninth judge to a sharply divided “4-4” court. Ilya Shapiro is carefully observing the political chess game around the Supreme Court nomination, and urges Senate Republicans not to hold hearings or a confirmation vote for President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Instead, he says they should wait until after a new president is elected – making the judicial pick the paramount issue in the coming election. Shapiro joins the show to argue that “We, the People” should make the choice of who determines the make-up of the court, with so much on the line. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/263236582Sarah Stillman on Minors Placed on the Sex Offender ListMon, 09 May 2016 16:40:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/sarah-stillman-on-minors-placed-on-the-sex-offender-list
00:52:13TheBobZadekShownoIt’s tempting to divide the world, in its unyieldingly complexity, into "good guys" and "bad guys." This provides endless plots and ratings for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, but it often hides the messy reality of our criminal justice system, where overzealous prosecution can make new victims out of innocent people. Sarah Stillman is an award-winning journalist and staff writer for The New Yorker, with a talent for bringing clarity and nuance to murky topics. The last time Stillman joined the show, she had written a gripping exposé on civil asset forfeiture – the unconstitutional takings of private property by police from suspects who have not been convicted of any crime. Now, she joins Bob to discuss her latest New Yorker piece, *The List,* on an even more delicate subject: minors placed on the sex-offender registry for their youthful mistakes. Stillman reports on a sampling of tragic cases, which cast doubt on laws that lead to harsh sentences and life-long scarlet letters for kids – some as young as 10 years old. We all want to protect victims. Tune in, and you may be surprised to learn how poorly the system works, even by that measure.It’s tempting to divide the world, in its unyield…It’s tempting to divide the world, in its unyieldingly complexity, into "good guys" and "bad guys." This provides endless plots and ratings for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, but it often hides the messy reality of our criminal justice system, where overzealous prosecution can make new victims out of innocent people. Sarah Stillman is an award-winning journalist and staff writer for The New Yorker, with a talent for bringing clarity and nuance to murky topics. The last time Stillman joined the show, she had written a gripping exposé on civil asset forfeiture – the unconstitutional takings of private property by police from suspects who have not been convicted of any crime. Now, she joins Bob to discuss her latest New Yorker piece, *The List,* on an even more delicate subject: minors placed on the sex-offender registry for their youthful mistakes. Stillman reports on a sampling of tragic cases, which cast doubt on laws that lead to harsh sentences and life-long scarlet letters for kids – some as young as 10 years old. We all want to protect victims. Tune in, and you may be surprised to learn how poorly the system works, even by that measure.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/260819418Growing the Liberty Movement with Atlas Network CEO Brad LipsMon, 25 Apr 2016 16:28:10 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/growing-the-liberty-movement-with-atlas-network-ceo-brad-lips
00:52:22TheBobZadekShownoAn unknown sage once quipped, “There may be two libertarians in the world who agree on absolutely everything, but I am not one of them.” This condition of free-thinking individualism applies to much – if not all – of the freedom movement. How then can a movement based on the ideas of liberty be nurtured in a world that is divided not only by language barriers and artificial borders, but ideological and cultural distinctions as well? Enter Atlas Network, which coordinates and promotes outstanding work from 470 think tanks across 90 countries. Brad Lips is CEO of Atlas Network, making him responsible for overseeing this vast web of individuals, major think tanks, and regional organizations – each with their own needs, aims, and solutions. Atlas Network strives to help its members achieve growth and impact in the marketplace for ideas, where there are no prices to guide decisions. Brad joins Bob to talk about how he applies a private-sector mindset to managing a network of independent nonprofits. Even the most ardent individualist will learn something from his approach to enlisting partners in the cause.An unknown sage once quipped, “There may be two l…An unknown sage once quipped, “There may be two libertarians in the world who agree on absolutely everything, but I am not one of them.” This condition of free-thinking individualism applies to much – if not all – of the freedom movement. How then can a movement based on the ideas of liberty be nurtured in a world that is divided not only by language barriers and artificial borders, but ideological and cultural distinctions as well? Enter Atlas Network, which coordinates and promotes outstanding work from 470 think tanks across 90 countries. Brad Lips is CEO of Atlas Network, making him responsible for overseeing this vast web of individuals, major think tanks, and regional organizations – each with their own needs, aims, and solutions. Atlas Network strives to help its members achieve growth and impact in the marketplace for ideas, where there are no prices to guide decisions. Brad joins Bob to talk about how he applies a private-sector mindset to managing a network of independent nonprofits. Even the most ardent individualist will learn something from his approach to enlisting partners in the cause.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/259703133Jason Bedrick on Overregulating School ChoiceMon, 18 Apr 2016 17:26:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jason-bedrick-on-overregulating-school-choice
00:52:26TheBobZadekShownoIf there’s a silver lining on the homogenous new “Common Core” educational standards, it is that over a dozen states have responded by providing or expanding educational choice opportunities to their citizens. Research has consistently shown that increasing choice and competition in education improves outcomes – at least for the students who have been lucky enough to participate in the handful of experiments with charter schools, vouchers, education savings accounts and the like. However, a new study on a Louisiana voucher program has unearthed a troubling finding for supporters of a freer market in education. Students zoned to failing public schools who applied for and received a voucher by lottery performed worse on math and English tests than those who lost the voucher lottery in the first two years of the voucher program. Jason Bedrick, a policy analyst with Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, has a theory on the outlier research paper. He joins Bob to solve the puzzle.If there’s a silver lining on the homogenous new …If there’s a silver lining on the homogenous new “Common Core” educational standards, it is that over a dozen states have responded by providing or expanding educational choice opportunities to their citizens. Research has consistently shown that increasing choice and competition in education improves outcomes – at least for the students who have been lucky enough to participate in the handful of experiments with charter schools, vouchers, education savings accounts and the like. However, a new study on a Louisiana voucher program has unearthed a troubling finding for supporters of a freer market in education. Students zoned to failing public schools who applied for and received a voucher by lottery performed worse on math and English tests than those who lost the voucher lottery in the first two years of the voucher program. Jason Bedrick, a policy analyst with Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, has a theory on the outlier research paper. He joins Bob to solve the puzzle.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/257288015Ian Vasquez on the Prospects for a Free CubaMon, 04 Apr 2016 17:35:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ian-vasquez-on-the-prospects-for-a-free-cuba
00:52:29TheBobZadekShownoCuban dissidents and political prisoners have waited a long time for meaningful reforms in their country – and the wait isn’t over. Even since 2006, when Fidel “El Libertador” Castro ceded power to his younger brother Raul, the government has continued to oppress its people and shackle its economy. Despite rumors of a sunny socialist utopia 90 miles from the Florida Keys, the reality is that Cuba remains mired in poverty and human rights abuses at the hands of its authoritarian leaders. However, there have been doubts about the effectiveness of the United States’ attempts to undermine the Castro regime, especially when it comes to the long-standing trade embargo. Such policies may just provide ammunition to the Cuban government in the form of an external excuse for the widespread misery brought about by central planning. Ian Vasquez claims that freer travel and (eventually) trade with the U.S. may not defeat the communist regime, but they will help advocates for a free Cuba by growing the small, “informal” private sector in an economy mostly run by and for the state. Vasquez is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He joins the show this Sunday against the backdrop of President Obama’s recent visit to Cuba to discuss the changes that are taking place. Bob will look to uncover a realistic view of the prospects for a free Cuba, and find out how Americans can help support a thriving civil society, as philanthropists, consumers and tourists.Cuban dissidents and political prisoners have wai…Cuban dissidents and political prisoners have waited a long time for meaningful reforms in their country – and the wait isn’t over. Even since 2006, when Fidel “El Libertador” Castro ceded power to his younger brother Raul, the government has continued to oppress its people and shackle its economy. Despite rumors of a sunny socialist utopia 90 miles from the Florida Keys, the reality is that Cuba remains mired in poverty and human rights abuses at the hands of its authoritarian leaders. However, there have been doubts about the effectiveness of the United States’ attempts to undermine the Castro regime, especially when it comes to the long-standing trade embargo. Such policies may just provide ammunition to the Cuban government in the form of an external excuse for the widespread misery brought about by central planning. Ian Vasquez claims that freer travel and (eventually) trade with the U.S. may not defeat the communist regime, but they will help advocates for a free Cuba by growing the small, “informal” private sector in an economy mostly run by and for the state. Vasquez is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He joins the show this Sunday against the backdrop of President Obama’s recent visit to Cuba to discuss the changes that are taking place. Bob will look to uncover a realistic view of the prospects for a free Cuba, and find out how Americans can help support a thriving civil society, as philanthropists, consumers and tourists.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/255589726Skip Young on the Wisdom of 76: Young America's Way to WealthMon, 28 Mar 2016 15:53:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/skip-young-on-the-wisdom-of-76-young-americas-way-to-wealth
00:52:30TheBobZadekShownoWhen video surfaces featuring scores of Yale students signing a petition to repeal the First Amendment, “hope” seems to be the hardest word to say. Sadly, the Bill of Rights appears to be on life support, and the up-and-coming generation of Ivy-educated citizens seems less than enthusiastic about resuscitating it. At the same time, the ideas of individualism and free enterprise are still alive and well in the general population, and it’s difficult to imagine anything replacing them. Bob embraces this silver lining with Skip Young, a SF-based entrepreneur and author of The Wisdom of 76: Young America’s Way to Wealth. In his debut book, Skip aims to inspire young audiences to the magic of the “invisible hand” – an idea which Adam Smith first put into print the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written. In just 10,000 words, Skip leads readers on a poetic journey of hope and discovery through the Declaration, The Wealth of Nations, Common Sense, and the “Way to Wealth.” A mix of engaging history and hypnotic monetary metaphors, Skip’s tract makes a compelling case that everyone can share in the American Dream with modest effort and a bit of bravery. The Wisdom of 76 may just hold the secret to saving the next generation before they are indoctrinated by the educational system.When video surfaces featuring scores of Yale stud…When video surfaces featuring scores of Yale students signing a petition to repeal the First Amendment, “hope” seems to be the hardest word to say. Sadly, the Bill of Rights appears to be on life support, and the up-and-coming generation of Ivy-educated citizens seems less than enthusiastic about resuscitating it. At the same time, the ideas of individualism and free enterprise are still alive and well in the general population, and it’s difficult to imagine anything replacing them. Bob embraces this silver lining with Skip Young, a SF-based entrepreneur and author of The Wisdom of 76: Young America’s Way to Wealth. In his debut book, Skip aims to inspire young audiences to the magic of the “invisible hand” – an idea which Adam Smith first put into print the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written. In just 10,000 words, Skip leads readers on a poetic journey of hope and discovery through the Declaration, The Wealth of Nations, Common Sense, and the “Way to Wealth.” A mix of engaging history and hypnotic monetary metaphors, Skip’s tract makes a compelling case that everyone can share in the American Dream with modest effort and a bit of bravery. The Wisdom of 76 may just hold the secret to saving the next generation before they are indoctrinated by the educational system.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/253804325Carol Berkin on the Bill of Rights No One WantedMon, 21 Mar 2016 16:30:50 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/carol-berkin-on-the-bill-of-rights-no-one-wanted
00:52:32TheBobZadekShownoVaulted behind a thick glass display case at the National Archives, and revered above the marble edifices and monuments of Washington D.C., sits a faded piece of parchment. In the eyes of many, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution symbolizes the bedrock ideas on which our country was built. Yet history tends to look past the true origins of this foundational work – a set of amendments, which most in the First U.S. Congress deemed either unnecessary or ineffective at protecting individual liberty. Few know the actual story of the drafting of the Bill of Rights better than Carol Berkin, an award-winning history professor and author of The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure Ameri­ca’s Liberties. Berkin joins Bob to trace the history leading up to its formation, with vivid detail on the context and thinking of the key figures in the debate. We learn, for example, that the Bill of Rights is indeed a symbol: Perhaps more than anything, it symbolizes the compromise and perseverance that were required to unite a deeply divided new nation, against all odds. Hear the whole story.Vaulted behind a thick glass display case at the …Vaulted behind a thick glass display case at the National Archives, and revered above the marble edifices and monuments of Washington D.C., sits a faded piece of parchment. In the eyes of many, the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution symbolizes the bedrock ideas on which our country was built. Yet history tends to look past the true origins of this foundational work – a set of amendments, which most in the First U.S. Congress deemed either unnecessary or ineffective at protecting individual liberty. Few know the actual story of the drafting of the Bill of Rights better than Carol Berkin, an award-winning history professor and author of The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure Ameri­ca’s Liberties. Berkin joins Bob to trace the history leading up to its formation, with vivid detail on the context and thinking of the key figures in the debate. We learn, for example, that the Bill of Rights is indeed a symbol: Perhaps more than anything, it symbolizes the compromise and perseverance that were required to unite a deeply divided new nation, against all odds. Hear the whole story.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/251843308Adam Bates on StingRay SurveillanceSun, 13 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bates
00:52:28TheBobZadekShownoMobile technology has brought uncountable conveniences into modern life, making it easier to locate new restaurants, get a lift across town, and listen to your favorite radio personalities on the go. On the flip side, some innovations have enabled both criminals and law enforcement to abuse technology, and use shadowy means to evade accountability. Adam Bates, a policy analyst with Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice, has been tracking the government’s surreptitious use of portable ‘Stingray’ devices, which can locate and obtain data from cell phones by masquerading as a cell phone tower (often without a warrant). Many criminals and malicious hackers have long known about police surveillance of cell phones, and sought more covert methods of communication. Thanks to groups like the Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU, the rest of the public is now learning of the potential violations of their privacy taking place in the name of public safety in virtually every jurisdiction in the country. This Sunday, Adam will explain how the use of Stingrays is undercutting our Fourth Amendment rights, and could be undermining efforts to put real criminals behind bars. Mobile technology has brought uncountable conveni…Mobile technology has brought uncountable conveniences into modern life, making it easier to locate new restaurants, get a lift across town, and listen to your favorite radio personalities on the go. On the flip side, some innovations have enabled both criminals and law enforcement to abuse technology, and use shadowy means to evade accountability. Adam Bates, a policy analyst with Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice, has been tracking the government’s surreptitious use of portable ‘Stingray’ devices, which can locate and obtain data from cell phones by masquerading as a cell phone tower (often without a warrant). Many criminals and malicious hackers have long known about police surveillance of cell phones, and sought more covert methods of communication. Thanks to groups like the Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU, the rest of the public is now learning of the potential violations of their privacy taking place in the name of public safety in virtually every jurisdiction in the country. This Sunday, Adam will explain how the use of Stingrays is undercutting our Fourth Amendment rights, and could be undermining efforts to put real criminals behind bars. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/248369263Gail Heriot on the Significance of Justice Scalia’s PassingMon, 22 Feb 2016 19:09:48 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/gail-heriot-on-the-significance-of-justice-scalias-passing
00:52:32TheBobZadekShownoThe recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia heralds an unprecedented moment in American politics. The sad news came as a surprise to his defenders and detractors alike, but the eulogies have been quickly eclipsed by the debate his vacant seat spawns. It's hard to overstate the importance of the next appointee to the Supreme Court bench (not to mention the others likely to come soon). Furthermore, the looming senate confirmation process injects yet another contentious issue into an already heated election year. To see where this battle is headed, Bob will be joined by University of San Diego Law Professor Gail Heriot. Heriot positions Scalia's legacy in terms of his deference to the logic of constitutional governance over any individual or narrow majority's final authority.
Who will be confirmed, and how will it all unfold?The recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Anton…The recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia heralds an unprecedented moment in American politics. The sad news came as a surprise to his defenders and detractors alike, but the eulogies have been quickly eclipsed by the debate his vacant seat spawns. It's hard to overstate the importance of the next appointee to the Supreme Court bench (not to mention the others likely to come soon). Furthermore, the looming senate confirmation process injects yet another contentious issue into an already heated election year. To see where this battle is headed, Bob will be joined by University of San Diego Law Professor Gail Heriot. Heriot positions Scalia's legacy in terms of his deference to the logic of constitutional governance over any individual or narrow majority's final authority.
Who will be confirmed, and how will it all unfold?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/247180153Primary Lessons in Democracy with Henry OlsenMon, 15 Feb 2016 16:23:58 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/primary-lessons-in-democracy-with-henry-olsen
00:52:32TheBobZadekShownoAlmost two years ago, approaching the 2014 mid-term elections, Bob interviewed Edward Hudgins of the Atlas Society on his book *The Republican Party’s Civil War.* The book's premise was that warring factions within the GOP could present an opportunity for the libertarian wing of the party to emerge at center stage. Hudgins made his optimistic case at a Cato Institute panel, with the opposing perspective presented by Henry Olsen, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who predicted that no such "libertarian moment" was in progress. Now, Olsen joins the show to expand on this argument, having examined hard data from past primary elections to compile his new book *The Four Faces of the Republican Party.* Olsen's thesis illustrates the messy nature of our democracy, and how the balance of power among factions determines election outcomes, rather than pure principles like limited government. While the upcoming presidential election may not bode well for liberty in the short term, it can instruct us on what a winning coalition might look like in the future.Almost two years ago, approaching the 2014 mid-te…Almost two years ago, approaching the 2014 mid-term elections, Bob interviewed Edward Hudgins of the Atlas Society on his book *The Republican Party’s Civil War.* The book's premise was that warring factions within the GOP could present an opportunity for the libertarian wing of the party to emerge at center stage. Hudgins made his optimistic case at a Cato Institute panel, with the opposing perspective presented by Henry Olsen, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who predicted that no such "libertarian moment" was in progress. Now, Olsen joins the show to expand on this argument, having examined hard data from past primary elections to compile his new book *The Four Faces of the Republican Party.* Olsen's thesis illustrates the messy nature of our democracy, and how the balance of power among factions determines election outcomes, rather than pure principles like limited government. While the upcoming presidential election may not bode well for liberty in the short term, it can instruct us on what a winning coalition might look like in the future.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/246069584How Do You Remember the American Revolution?Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:47:54 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-do-you-remember-the-american-revolution
00:52:34TheBobZadekShownoAndrew M. Schocket, Professor of History and American Culture Studies at Bowling Green State University, wants his students and readers to think more clearly about our collective “memory” of the American Revolution. In *Fighting Over the Founders: How We Remember the American Revolution,* Schocket compresses thousands of political speeches, as well as films, museum exhibits, re-enactments and “originalist” movements, in a single, readable volume, in which he teases out the most common portrayals of our country’s critical founding period. His computer-aided research techniques have given him a high-altitude view of history, from which he sees two main competing visions – each with ideological consequences. Can you guess which party’s candidates are more likely to use the phrase “A More Perfect Union” in campaign speeches? Or, alternatively, which party refers to the “Founder Fathers” more often? Schocket's history lesson is a reminder of the importance of stories and memory in passing the ideals of liberty on to the next generation. Don't miss this Sunday's show, on Talk910 AM, to get the full picture.Andrew M. Schocket, Professor of History and Amer…Andrew M. Schocket, Professor of History and American Culture Studies at Bowling Green State University, wants his students and readers to think more clearly about our collective “memory” of the American Revolution. In *Fighting Over the Founders: How We Remember the American Revolution,* Schocket compresses thousands of political speeches, as well as films, museum exhibits, re-enactments and “originalist” movements, in a single, readable volume, in which he teases out the most common portrayals of our country’s critical founding period. His computer-aided research techniques have given him a high-altitude view of history, from which he sees two main competing visions – each with ideological consequences. Can you guess which party’s candidates are more likely to use the phrase “A More Perfect Union” in campaign speeches? Or, alternatively, which party refers to the “Founder Fathers” more often? Schocket's history lesson is a reminder of the importance of stories and memory in passing the ideals of liberty on to the next generation. Don't miss this Sunday's show, on Talk910 AM, to get the full picture.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/243743510Sally Satel: The Case for Compensating Organ DonorsMon, 25 Jan 2016 19:31:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/sally-satel-the-case-for-compensating-organ-donors
00:52:21TheBobZadekShownoThere are many reasons why patients end up needing a new kidney, but only one reason why 12 of them die every day from their treatable illness: the shortage of willing donors. Compensating organ donation remains highly taboo, and federally illegal, even as we rely on monetary incentives for everything else we need (from hamburgers to heart surgery). 10 years ago, AEI Scholar Sally Satel, M.D., nearly succumbed to the long wait for a healthy kidney. She now fights for those who are still waiting, and who will continue to suffer until an educated public demands change. Sally is author of When Altruism Isn’t Enough: The Case for Compensating Organ Donors, and has brought her case to Congress, along with the readers of the New York Times & the Washington Post. Bob and Sally will explore the pitfalls of using political correctness and “gut feeling” as the compass for rational policymaking when so many lives are on the line.There are many reasons why patients end up needin…There are many reasons why patients end up needing a new kidney, but only one reason why 12 of them die every day from their treatable illness: the shortage of willing donors. Compensating organ donation remains highly taboo, and federally illegal, even as we rely on monetary incentives for everything else we need (from hamburgers to heart surgery). 10 years ago, AEI Scholar Sally Satel, M.D., nearly succumbed to the long wait for a healthy kidney. She now fights for those who are still waiting, and who will continue to suffer until an educated public demands change. Sally is author of When Altruism Isn’t Enough: The Case for Compensating Organ Donors, and has brought her case to Congress, along with the readers of the New York Times & the Washington Post. Bob and Sally will explore the pitfalls of using political correctness and “gut feeling” as the compass for rational policymaking when so many lives are on the line.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/241459135Randal O'Toole on Rising RentsMon, 11 Jan 2016 18:10:59 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/randal-otoole-on-rising-rents
00:52:15TheBobZadekShownoThe Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole (aka the @antiplanner) returns to the show to discuss the epidemic of rising rents in metropolitan areas across America. As usual, planners at the federal, regional, and local levels have a policy solution in search of a problem, and are creating new problems in the process. They cite the lack of affordable urban housing near public transit as justification for “growth management”, but their plans end up discouraging developers from increasing the supply of the most-needed kinds of housing. Basic economics predicts the devastating endgame for the lower and middle classes: The rent is too damn high. One solution, on which even partisans can agree, is land deregulation. Yet top-down urban transformations like Plan Bay Area, for example, continue to rule the day. While O'Toole grants that some planning and regulation is necessary to minimize the negative externalities of large numbers living in urban areas, he argues that “urban planning itself has become the externality.” Tune in for the show of ideas, not attitude – on Talk910.com or 910AM in the SF Bay Area.The Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole (aka the @ant…The Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole (aka the @antiplanner) returns to the show to discuss the epidemic of rising rents in metropolitan areas across America. As usual, planners at the federal, regional, and local levels have a policy solution in search of a problem, and are creating new problems in the process. They cite the lack of affordable urban housing near public transit as justification for “growth management”, but their plans end up discouraging developers from increasing the supply of the most-needed kinds of housing. Basic economics predicts the devastating endgame for the lower and middle classes: The rent is too damn high. One solution, on which even partisans can agree, is land deregulation. Yet top-down urban transformations like Plan Bay Area, for example, continue to rule the day. While O'Toole grants that some planning and regulation is necessary to minimize the negative externalities of large numbers living in urban areas, he argues that “urban planning itself has become the externality.” Tune in for the show of ideas, not attitude – on Talk910.com or 910AM in the SF Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/240371160David Bernstein on the Obama's Administration's LawlessnessMon, 04 Jan 2016 17:48:43 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/david-bernstein-on-the-obamas-administrations-lawlessness
00:52:34TheBobZadekShownoNot long ago, Barack Obama's peers knew him as a moderate. As a constitutional law professor, Obama generally subscribed to the dominant progressive ideology at Harvard Law School, but voiced a strong belief in separation of powers and other checks on the executive branch. Many hoped he might become the first civil libertarian president. Now, even liberal law professors (not to mention liberal Supreme Court justices) are questioning the legal reasoning behind the Obama administration’s increasingly brazen edicts. David Bernstein, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, has documented the worst of these abuses power in his new book, “Lawless: The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law” – drone strikes without Congressional approval are only the tip of the iceberg. Regardless of your political tribe, you must listen to Bernstein’s warning. Obama supporters should be especially wary – after all, who knows who will be wielding these expanded powers down the road? Call in with your thoughts to the show ideas, not attitude. Every Sunday at 9am PACIFIC. 1-800-345-5639.Not long ago, Barack Obama's peers knew him as a …Not long ago, Barack Obama's peers knew him as a moderate. As a constitutional law professor, Obama generally subscribed to the dominant progressive ideology at Harvard Law School, but voiced a strong belief in separation of powers and other checks on the executive branch. Many hoped he might become the first civil libertarian president. Now, even liberal law professors (not to mention liberal Supreme Court justices) are questioning the legal reasoning behind the Obama administration’s increasingly brazen edicts. David Bernstein, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, has documented the worst of these abuses power in his new book, “Lawless: The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law” – drone strikes without Congressional approval are only the tip of the iceberg. Regardless of your political tribe, you must listen to Bernstein’s warning. Obama supporters should be especially wary – after all, who knows who will be wielding these expanded powers down the road? Call in with your thoughts to the show ideas, not attitude. Every Sunday at 9am PACIFIC. 1-800-345-5639.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/239379090Jim Bovard: Seeing Through TSA's Security TheaterMon, 28 Dec 2015 06:00:41 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/jim-bovard-seeing-through-tsas-security-theater
00:51:59TheBobZadekShownoIf you're flying home from vacation this weekend, you have one more gift to look forward to before you reach your gate: a TSA body scan. As of this week, opt outs of the invasive technology will no longer be granted to all those who ask for the alternative pat down. Jim Bovard has written for over a decade on the Transportation Security Agency’s encroachments of liberty. A frequent “opter-out” of the scanners in bygone times, Bovard has not flinched in the face of the screeners’ intimidation tactics. In addition to his repeat encounters with TSA agents, Bovard stands out among libertarian writers for his widely-read USA Today columns denouncing the climate of fear created by government to justify their privacy violations. He joins this special holiday edition of The Bob Zadek Show to dissect the carefully constructed “security theater” that we are forced to attend every time we fly. Tune in at 9am Pacific and call in with your nightmare experiences at airport security.If you're flying home from vacation this weekend,…If you're flying home from vacation this weekend, you have one more gift to look forward to before you reach your gate: a TSA body scan. As of this week, opt outs of the invasive technology will no longer be granted to all those who ask for the alternative pat down. Jim Bovard has written for over a decade on the Transportation Security Agency’s encroachments of liberty. A frequent “opter-out” of the scanners in bygone times, Bovard has not flinched in the face of the screeners’ intimidation tactics. In addition to his repeat encounters with TSA agents, Bovard stands out among libertarian writers for his widely-read USA Today columns denouncing the climate of fear created by government to justify their privacy violations. He joins this special holiday edition of The Bob Zadek Show to dissect the carefully constructed “security theater” that we are forced to attend every time we fly. Tune in at 9am Pacific and call in with your nightmare experiences at airport security.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/238541302Immigration Nation: Nowrasteh Sets it Straight AgainMon, 21 Dec 2015 18:14:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/immigration-nation-nowrasteh-sets-it-straight-again
00:52:15TheBobZadekShownoThe last time Alex Nowrasteh joined the show, several listeners called in with concerns over Bob and Alex’s boldly open stance on immigration. As a leading immigration scholar with the Cato Institute, Nowrasteh researches, blogs, speaks, and tweets tirelessly in support of a more sane and open border policy. Bob says, “Let them all in” (with a few obvious exceptions). For each alleged issue the callers raised against open borders, Nowrasteh presented actual statistics debunking their misconceptions. You could hear their minds changing in real time. With the Republican primary heating up, we must be educated on the facts of the immigration debate in order to see through the fog of fear-based rhetoric. Bob and Alex will provide a brief history of immigration policy in the United States, and discuss the major presidential candidates' positions on a legal pathway to citizenship, i.e., "amnesty." The last time Alex Nowrasteh joined the show, sev…The last time Alex Nowrasteh joined the show, several listeners called in with concerns over Bob and Alex’s boldly open stance on immigration. As a leading immigration scholar with the Cato Institute, Nowrasteh researches, blogs, speaks, and tweets tirelessly in support of a more sane and open border policy. Bob says, “Let them all in” (with a few obvious exceptions). For each alleged issue the callers raised against open borders, Nowrasteh presented actual statistics debunking their misconceptions. You could hear their minds changing in real time. With the Republican primary heating up, we must be educated on the facts of the immigration debate in order to see through the fog of fear-based rhetoric. Bob and Alex will provide a brief history of immigration policy in the United States, and discuss the major presidential candidates' positions on a legal pathway to citizenship, i.e., "amnesty." tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/236523362Walter Olson, "Guru of Tort Reform," on ArbitrationMon, 07 Dec 2015 20:44:29 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/walter-olson-guru-of-tort-reform-on-arbitration
00:52:16TheBobZadekShownoIn the past, The New York Times has solicited new online subscribers via a pop-up banner reading, “You look like someone who enjoys a good story." This is is particularly apt for the editors of the Times, who seem to prefer dramatic story-telling over unbiased journalism. Walter Olson, the Cato Institute's "Intellectual Guru of Tort Reform," has been monitoring a particularly skewed narrative, endorsed by a series of NY Times articles that assault private arbitration. Businesses and consumers have embraced the arbitration alternative over expensive and unpredictable courtroom trials, which often enrich trial lawyers but do little for litigants. Most lawyers are the good guys in America, defending liberty and keeping consumer prices low, but some members of the profession do quite the opposite. Want to talk about money in politics? Olson explains how the trial lawyer lobby became one of the most powerful special interests around.In the past, The New York Times has solicited new…In the past, The New York Times has solicited new online subscribers via a pop-up banner reading, “You look like someone who enjoys a good story." This is is particularly apt for the editors of the Times, who seem to prefer dramatic story-telling over unbiased journalism. Walter Olson, the Cato Institute's "Intellectual Guru of Tort Reform," has been monitoring a particularly skewed narrative, endorsed by a series of NY Times articles that assault private arbitration. Businesses and consumers have embraced the arbitration alternative over expensive and unpredictable courtroom trials, which often enrich trial lawyers but do little for litigants. Most lawyers are the good guys in America, defending liberty and keeping consumer prices low, but some members of the profession do quite the opposite. Want to talk about money in politics? Olson explains how the trial lawyer lobby became one of the most powerful special interests around.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/235434202Michael O'Hanlon on *The Future of Land Warfare*Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:07:25 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/michael-ohanlon-on-the-future-of-land-warfare
00:52:04TheBobZadekShownoOn October 30, a war-weary American public once again heard its President announce the need for U.S. “boots on the ground” in the Middle East. Obama’s new strategy – a reversal of prior assurances – came in response to the civil war in Syria, which has ignited conflict in the entire region. Michael O’Hanlon, Director of Foreign Policy Research at the Brookings Institution, joins Bob to explain recent events, including Turkey’s downing of a Russian jet, and his new book, *The Future of Land Warfare.* O'Hanlon argues that the current crisis in the Middle East can be resolved, but it will take more than drone strikes and training Syrian ground forces. Experts seem to agree the U.S. military is facing many bad options.On October 30, a war-weary American public once a…On October 30, a war-weary American public once again heard its President announce the need for U.S. “boots on the ground” in the Middle East. Obama’s new strategy – a reversal of prior assurances – came in response to the civil war in Syria, which has ignited conflict in the entire region. Michael O’Hanlon, Director of Foreign Policy Research at the Brookings Institution, joins Bob to explain recent events, including Turkey’s downing of a Russian jet, and his new book, *The Future of Land Warfare.* O'Hanlon argues that the current crisis in the Middle East can be resolved, but it will take more than drone strikes and training Syrian ground forces. Experts seem to agree the U.S. military is facing many bad options.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/232283166Norm Singleton on Rand Paul, The SenatorMon, 09 Nov 2015 16:58:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/norm-singleton-on-rand-paul-the-senator
00:52:29TheBobZadekShownoRand Paul has followed in his father Ron Paul's footsteps in more ways than one. The Kentucky Senator’s presidential campaign began soon after the elder Paul's aspirations faded. Rand remains a champion of his father's core issues – sound money, a balanced budget, and limited government interference with individual liberties. His critics contend that a recent filibuster over the endlessly expanding debt ceiling was "grandstanding," but his supporters will tell you that his legislative principles are the main reason they #StandwithRand. Campaign for Liberty's Norm Singleton worked closely with Ron Paul from 1997-2012, and is one of the most prolific commentators and keenest observers of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He joins Bob live for the full hour to talk about the latest battles in the Senate, specifically, the grassroots movement to Audit the Fed, and why so many in the media and politics just don’t get it.Rand Paul has followed in his father Ron Paul's f…Rand Paul has followed in his father Ron Paul's footsteps in more ways than one. The Kentucky Senator’s presidential campaign began soon after the elder Paul's aspirations faded. Rand remains a champion of his father's core issues – sound money, a balanced budget, and limited government interference with individual liberties. His critics contend that a recent filibuster over the endlessly expanding debt ceiling was "grandstanding," but his supporters will tell you that his legislative principles are the main reason they #StandwithRand. Campaign for Liberty's Norm Singleton worked closely with Ron Paul from 1997-2012, and is one of the most prolific commentators and keenest observers of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He joins Bob live for the full hour to talk about the latest battles in the Senate, specifically, the grassroots movement to Audit the Fed, and why so many in the media and politics just don’t get it.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/231226484Does the Constitution Still Matter? Evan Bernick from the IJMon, 02 Nov 2015 17:30:29 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/does-the-constitution-still-matter-evan-bernick-from-the-ij
00:52:12TheBobZadekShownoEver since Marbury v. Madison institutionalized the process of judicial review, the judicial branch has been responsible for deciding whether legislation is consistent with the federal Constitution. Some conservative critics of the Supreme Court decry its “judicial activism,” i.e., the imposition of judges’ personal policy preferences as constitutional commands. Other critics fault the Supreme Court for its “judicial restraint,” i.e., the court’s acceptance of government policies (like Obamacare) that mandate or regulate behavior, even when a plain reading of the Constitution seems to prohibit it. The Institute for Justice, the nation's premiere libertarian public interest law firm, is responding to this debate by calling for judicial engagement, or active judicial enforcement of the Constitution’s guarantees of individual liberty. Evan Bernick is the Assistant Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, and principal author of a new report, Enforcing the Constitution, featuring twenty case studies in both judicial engagement and its opposite, judicial abdication. Bernick has written extensively for the Huffington Post on how the Supreme Court can and should remain a bulwark of individual liberty. He joins Bob to highlight a few of these cases and prognosticate about the prospects for proper judicial enforcement of constitutional liberties.Ever since Marbury v. Madison institutionalized t…Ever since Marbury v. Madison institutionalized the process of judicial review, the judicial branch has been responsible for deciding whether legislation is consistent with the federal Constitution. Some conservative critics of the Supreme Court decry its “judicial activism,” i.e., the imposition of judges’ personal policy preferences as constitutional commands. Other critics fault the Supreme Court for its “judicial restraint,” i.e., the court’s acceptance of government policies (like Obamacare) that mandate or regulate behavior, even when a plain reading of the Constitution seems to prohibit it. The Institute for Justice, the nation's premiere libertarian public interest law firm, is responding to this debate by calling for judicial engagement, or active judicial enforcement of the Constitution’s guarantees of individual liberty. Evan Bernick is the Assistant Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, and principal author of a new report, Enforcing the Constitution, featuring twenty case studies in both judicial engagement and its opposite, judicial abdication. Bernick has written extensively for the Huffington Post on how the Supreme Court can and should remain a bulwark of individual liberty. He joins Bob to highlight a few of these cases and prognosticate about the prospects for proper judicial enforcement of constitutional liberties.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/230159020Robert Pondiscio on California’s Common Core Test ResultsMon, 26 Oct 2015 15:14:07 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/robert-pondiscio-on-californias-common-core-test-results
00:52:29TheBobZadekShownoThe Common Core State Standards Initiative was unpopular with many Americans when states began passing it five years ago. The initiative details what K-12 students should know in English and math at the end of each grade level, and has since been adopted in 42 states. Now, the results are beginning to come in. While outcomes are trending positive in many states, the tests revealed that California has been performing poorly – worse than previously known under more relaxed standards. Robert Pondiscio is vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he writes about education and education-reform issues. Pondiscio recently wrote an op-ed in the San Diego Union Tribune, arguing that we shouldn’t shoot the messenger, i.e., blame the new standards. Having spent time both in the classroom and the policy arena, Pondiscio is positioned to see how it functions and how it falls short. He joins Bob this Sunday to discuss how California is failing to prepare many of its students for the future, and how increasing educational choice through charter schools can help.The Common Core State Standards Initiative was un…The Common Core State Standards Initiative was unpopular with many Americans when states began passing it five years ago. The initiative details what K-12 students should know in English and math at the end of each grade level, and has since been adopted in 42 states. Now, the results are beginning to come in. While outcomes are trending positive in many states, the tests revealed that California has been performing poorly – worse than previously known under more relaxed standards. Robert Pondiscio is vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he writes about education and education-reform issues. Pondiscio recently wrote an op-ed in the San Diego Union Tribune, arguing that we shouldn’t shoot the messenger, i.e., blame the new standards. Having spent time both in the classroom and the policy arena, Pondiscio is positioned to see how it functions and how it falls short. He joins Bob this Sunday to discuss how California is failing to prepare many of its students for the future, and how increasing educational choice through charter schools can help.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/229443712John Chisholm on Unleashing Your Inner CompanyWed, 21 Oct 2015 17:45:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/john-chisholm-on-unleashing-your-inner-company
00:52:11TheBobZadekShownoJohn Chisholm has 30 years of experience as an entrepreneur, CEO & investor. The founder of two successful internet companies, CustomerSat & Decisive Technology, John has some surprisingly simple yet powerful pieces of advice for the aspiring entrepreneur. His new book, Unleash Your Inner Company: Use Passion & Perseverance to Build Your Ideal Business, instructs would-be entrepreneurs to live below their means, favor people over possessions, and find positive feedback loops by affirming their teammates' best qualities. But John's book is more than just an entrepreneurship how-to book – it's a thorough roadmap to the new economy, where nearly everyone will have to be an entrepreneur of one kind or another. Lastly, Unleash Your Inner Company is a manifesto for the independent thinker who wants to create positive-sum value.John Chisholm has 30 years of experience as an en…John Chisholm has 30 years of experience as an entrepreneur, CEO & investor. The founder of two successful internet companies, CustomerSat & Decisive Technology, John has some surprisingly simple yet powerful pieces of advice for the aspiring entrepreneur. His new book, Unleash Your Inner Company: Use Passion & Perseverance to Build Your Ideal Business, instructs would-be entrepreneurs to live below their means, favor people over possessions, and find positive feedback loops by affirming their teammates' best qualities. But John's book is more than just an entrepreneurship how-to book – it's a thorough roadmap to the new economy, where nearly everyone will have to be an entrepreneur of one kind or another. Lastly, Unleash Your Inner Company is a manifesto for the independent thinker who wants to create positive-sum value.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/225825694Casey Given on Students for LibertySun, 27 Sep 2015 17:44:52 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/casey-given-on-students-for-liberty
00:52:30TheBobZadekShownoOf all the areas where liberties are under assault, college campuses may be the battleground with the highest stakes. This show has covered the rise of restrictive campus speech codes, which have a "chilling effect" on free thought and expression. But at the same time, resistance is growing. Students everywhere are looking for alternative outlets to the classroom, where they can voice opinions that might otherwise be silenced or punished. Student groups, comprising like-minded liberty-lovers, may be the last, best hope to keep the flame of freedom alive. Casey Given is Director of Communications for Students for Liberty, a growing network of liberty-oriented college clubs. Casey joins Bob from Washington DC to explain how SFL is empowering students to push back against their professors' not-so-hidden political agendas, and to becoming a force capable of challenging the status quo in years to come. Bob and Casey will also discuss the ever-important question of why we must defend our liberties, in spite of the relatively low short-term reward of such sacrifices.Of all the areas where liberties are under assaul…Of all the areas where liberties are under assault, college campuses may be the battleground with the highest stakes. This show has covered the rise of restrictive campus speech codes, which have a "chilling effect" on free thought and expression. But at the same time, resistance is growing. Students everywhere are looking for alternative outlets to the classroom, where they can voice opinions that might otherwise be silenced or punished. Student groups, comprising like-minded liberty-lovers, may be the last, best hope to keep the flame of freedom alive. Casey Given is Director of Communications for Students for Liberty, a growing network of liberty-oriented college clubs. Casey joins Bob from Washington DC to explain how SFL is empowering students to push back against their professors' not-so-hidden political agendas, and to becoming a force capable of challenging the status quo in years to come. Bob and Casey will also discuss the ever-important question of why we must defend our liberties, in spite of the relatively low short-term reward of such sacrifices.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/224899263Anthony Alfidi on Containing ISISMon, 21 Sep 2015 16:37:40 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/anthony-alfidi-on-containing-isis
00:52:18TheBobZadekShownoAs the U.S. tires of military involvement in countries like Iraq and Syria, the vacuum of power left in our wake has created new opportunities for extreme groups like the Islamic State to seize local control. Some libertarians argue on principle that complete exit is the only solution, since prior mistakes by Western powers seem implicated in the current mess. But even if we leave, ISIS may not be content to leave the rest of the world alone. Islamic State radicals are strengthening existing strongholds in the Middle East, while expanding into North Africa and planning new ways to ignite conflict across the globe – a precursor to their stated goal of a world-wide Caliphate. To understand where the real threats lie, and the appropriate response by a weary Western world, Bob is joined by Anthony Alfidi, a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, and Founder and CEO of Alfidi Capital. Alfidi served in Iraq, where he observed the preconditions to the current situation unfolding firsthand. Based on his experience and research, he believes the media is not accurately portraying the threat posed by ISIS. Regardless of your stance on U.S. foreign policy, you won't want to miss this rare opportunity to hear the perspective of a military officer, rather than the usual talking heads.As the U.S. tires of military involvement in coun…As the U.S. tires of military involvement in countries like Iraq and Syria, the vacuum of power left in our wake has created new opportunities for extreme groups like the Islamic State to seize local control. Some libertarians argue on principle that complete exit is the only solution, since prior mistakes by Western powers seem implicated in the current mess. But even if we leave, ISIS may not be content to leave the rest of the world alone. Islamic State radicals are strengthening existing strongholds in the Middle East, while expanding into North Africa and planning new ways to ignite conflict across the globe – a precursor to their stated goal of a world-wide Caliphate. To understand where the real threats lie, and the appropriate response by a weary Western world, Bob is joined by Anthony Alfidi, a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, and Founder and CEO of Alfidi Capital. Alfidi served in Iraq, where he observed the preconditions to the current situation unfolding firsthand. Based on his experience and research, he believes the media is not accurately portraying the threat posed by ISIS. Regardless of your stance on U.S. foreign policy, you won't want to miss this rare opportunity to hear the perspective of a military officer, rather than the usual talking heads.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/223903482Robin Koerner: A Blue Republican, Ready for RandTue, 15 Sep 2015 01:26:32 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/robin-koerner-a-blue-republican-ready-for-rand
00:51:39TheBobZadekShownoLibertarians don’t quite seem cut out for politics. A Republican or Democrat has occupied the White House since 1852, and the two party system shows no signs of weakening in 2016 or beyond. This election cycle, however, there is a Republican candidate with liberal social leanings, apart from his conservative views on taxes and regulation. In other words, Rand Paul is a libertarian. Robin Koerner thinks Paul will get more votes if he opts for a different label: Blue Republican. Koerner, a Cambridge polymath and UK native, made his name as an observer of American politics (he lives in the US and is becoming an American citizen), but then found a calling in rebranding the GOP with certain humane values more often expressed by the left. Koerner advocates simplifying the Republican platform to a few issues: restoring civil liberties, ending foreign wars, and slashing corporate welfare. He and Bob discuss the Blue Republican platform, and Koerner’s new project *Ready for Rand,* a PAC dedicated to winning converts to the cause of liberty, rather than arguments about libertarian principles.Libertarians don’t quite seem cut out for politic…Libertarians don’t quite seem cut out for politics. A Republican or Democrat has occupied the White House since 1852, and the two party system shows no signs of weakening in 2016 or beyond. This election cycle, however, there is a Republican candidate with liberal social leanings, apart from his conservative views on taxes and regulation. In other words, Rand Paul is a libertarian. Robin Koerner thinks Paul will get more votes if he opts for a different label: Blue Republican. Koerner, a Cambridge polymath and UK native, made his name as an observer of American politics (he lives in the US and is becoming an American citizen), but then found a calling in rebranding the GOP with certain humane values more often expressed by the left. Koerner advocates simplifying the Republican platform to a few issues: restoring civil liberties, ending foreign wars, and slashing corporate welfare. He and Bob discuss the Blue Republican platform, and Koerner’s new project *Ready for Rand,* a PAC dedicated to winning converts to the cause of liberty, rather than arguments about libertarian principles.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/221636164Ronald Bailey on the End of DoomMon, 31 Aug 2015 02:14:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ronald-bailey-on-the-end-of-doom
00:52:29TheBobZadekShownoReading recent headlines, one might start to think the world is unraveling at its seams. But dig beneath the surface of attention-grabbing press, and a different picture emerges. Consider a few surprising truths the media rarely reports: The cancer "epidemic" only appears as such because of longer lifespans. As countries get wealthier, they are able to afford a cleaner environment. GMOs have saved billions of lives. All three of these facts run counter to the doomsday narratives, so loved by sensationalist media and environmental-activists-in-scientists'-clothing alike. Award-winning Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey has made it his mission to look honestly at the ecological impact of civilization, and correct the dire predictions of environmentalists which consistently fail to materialize. Bailey joined Bob for the full hour to discuss his new book, "The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century." Reading recent headlines, one might start to thin…Reading recent headlines, one might start to think the world is unraveling at its seams. But dig beneath the surface of attention-grabbing press, and a different picture emerges. Consider a few surprising truths the media rarely reports: The cancer "epidemic" only appears as such because of longer lifespans. As countries get wealthier, they are able to afford a cleaner environment. GMOs have saved billions of lives. All three of these facts run counter to the doomsday narratives, so loved by sensationalist media and environmental-activists-in-scientists'-clothing alike. Award-winning Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey has made it his mission to look honestly at the ecological impact of civilization, and correct the dire predictions of environmentalists which consistently fail to materialize. Bailey joined Bob for the full hour to discuss his new book, "The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century." tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/220923190Joe Quirk on Seasteading 3.0Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:18:33 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/joe-quirk-on-seasteading-30
00:51:37TheBobZadekShownoTwo weeks ago, Bob welcomed Czech native Vit Jedlicka to the show, to discuss his nascent new country of Liberland, located in the no-man's-land between Serbia and Croatia. While Vit is busy recruiting a global legion of volunteers and ambassadors for his new country effort, a related movement is picking up steam right here in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Seasteading Institute, founded in 2008 in Silicon Valley, is a nonprofit organization leading the push to populate the high seas with hundreds, or even thousands, of brand-new “startup” societies. Each “seastead” would compete for citizens like businesses compete for customers. This would force innovation, since people could “vote with their boats,” i.e., move to another seastead, if the government failed to provide services or began taxing too much. Joe Quirk is The Seasteading Institute’s Communications Director, an acclaimed author of both fiction and nonfiction, and the world’s most prolific “seavangelist.” He joins Bob live in the studio this Sunday to explain why we need seasteading to reinvigorate the frontier and jumpstart both technological and political progress. Quirk’s words have inspired audiences worldwide to the cause of seasteading – and not just libertarians. His eight great moral imperatives video series made the case for a “Blue Revolution” in sustainable seafood production, under the stewardship of more efficient, innovative governance. It’s a message that should appeal to people across the political spectrum. Listen with a friend and find out you share more common ground – in the ocean – than you thought.Two weeks ago, Bob welcomed Czech native Vit Jedl…Two weeks ago, Bob welcomed Czech native Vit Jedlicka to the show, to discuss his nascent new country of Liberland, located in the no-man's-land between Serbia and Croatia. While Vit is busy recruiting a global legion of volunteers and ambassadors for his new country effort, a related movement is picking up steam right here in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Seasteading Institute, founded in 2008 in Silicon Valley, is a nonprofit organization leading the push to populate the high seas with hundreds, or even thousands, of brand-new “startup” societies. Each “seastead” would compete for citizens like businesses compete for customers. This would force innovation, since people could “vote with their boats,” i.e., move to another seastead, if the government failed to provide services or began taxing too much. Joe Quirk is The Seasteading Institute’s Communications Director, an acclaimed author of both fiction and nonfiction, and the world’s most prolific “seavangelist.” He joins Bob live in the studio this Sunday to explain why we need seasteading to reinvigorate the frontier and jumpstart both technological and political progress. Quirk’s words have inspired audiences worldwide to the cause of seasteading – and not just libertarians. His eight great moral imperatives video series made the case for a “Blue Revolution” in sustainable seafood production, under the stewardship of more efficient, innovative governance. It’s a message that should appeal to people across the political spectrum. Listen with a friend and find out you share more common ground – in the ocean – than you thought.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/219678404Lawrence McQuillan on Pension Reform: California DreamingMon, 17 Aug 2015 20:10:03 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/lawrence-mcquillan-on-pension-reform-california-dreaming
00:52:16TheBobZadekShownoThe State of California is dreaming, according to Lawrence McQuillan – an economics and finance expert with the Bay Area’s own Independent Institute. His new book (California Dreaming: Lessons on How to Resolve America’s Public Pension Crisis) points out that Governor Brown and the Democrats in the legislature are failing to deal plainly with the reality of economic trade-offs: it’s either worker pensions or government services. There's simply not enough revenue for both with the promises we're slated to make to public sector workers. Perhaps the Golden State has gotten away with tax hikes for so long because of its natural beauty and ideal weather, but McQuillan says this is no longer an option. He joins Bob to discuss the real reason behind UC tuition hikes and cuts to state and local services. Learn how politicians like Gray Davis sold out future generations, raising pensions during the dot-com boom, bankrupting California both financially and morally. Let’s hope Governor Brown is listening.The State of California is dreaming, according to…The State of California is dreaming, according to Lawrence McQuillan – an economics and finance expert with the Bay Area’s own Independent Institute. His new book (California Dreaming: Lessons on How to Resolve America’s Public Pension Crisis) points out that Governor Brown and the Democrats in the legislature are failing to deal plainly with the reality of economic trade-offs: it’s either worker pensions or government services. There's simply not enough revenue for both with the promises we're slated to make to public sector workers. Perhaps the Golden State has gotten away with tax hikes for so long because of its natural beauty and ideal weather, but McQuillan says this is no longer an option. He joins Bob to discuss the real reason behind UC tuition hikes and cuts to state and local services. Learn how politicians like Gray Davis sold out future generations, raising pensions during the dot-com boom, bankrupting California both financially and morally. Let’s hope Governor Brown is listening.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/218487067Vit Jedlicka on Founding LiberlandSun, 09 Aug 2015 18:28:07 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/vit-jedlicka-on-founding-liberland
00:52:18TheBobZadekShownoIn this special edition of the Bob Zadek Show, Bob not only welcomes his first head-of-state and first Croatian guest, President Vit Jedlicka, but he introduces him on a boat, speeding down the Danube, fresh off of a visit to the world's newest country – Liberland.
Bob is also joined by his producer, Charlie Deist, who recently met up with Vit and his delegation in New York City, during their U.S. TourIn this special edition of the Bob Zadek Show, Bo…In this special edition of the Bob Zadek Show, Bob not only welcomes his first head-of-state and first Croatian guest, President Vit Jedlicka, but he introduces him on a boat, speeding down the Danube, fresh off of a visit to the world's newest country – Liberland.
Bob is also joined by his producer, Charlie Deist, who recently met up with Vit and his delegation in New York City, during their U.S. Tourtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642591Full Interview With @CatoEdwards On Why Government FailsMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:48:57 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with
00:52:22TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642526Why Has Government Failed Us & How Can We Fix It? In A Word, AccountabilityMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:48:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/why-has-government-failed-us
00:05:42TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642484Applied Government Failure #1: Medicare Fraud, Concentrated Benefits & Dispersed CostsMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:48:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/applied-government-failure-1
00:04:36TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642446Applied Government Failure #2: Farm Subsidies & Log-RollingMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:47:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/applied-government-failure-2
00:01:54TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642403Top-Down Coercion: The Structural Weakness Ensuring Government FailureMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:47:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/top-down-coercion-the
00:02:49TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642360Terminating Failures: Apple’s Agile Market Testing Vs. Sclerotic Government Lock-InMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:47:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/terminating-failures-apples
00:05:04TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642316Civil Service Failure Embodied: Private vs. Public ParksMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:46:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/civil-service-failure-embodied
00:05:35TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642266Bureaucrats Are People Too: Self-Interest Rules Everything Around MeMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:46:33 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bureaucrats-are-people-too
00:05:04TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642219The Tragic Transformation Of Banking Entrepreneurs Into BureaucratsMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:46:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-tragic-transformation-of
00:02:28TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642180Don’t Confuse Outsourcing & Regulatory Capture With Privatization & Competition…Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:45:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/dont-confuse-outsourcing
00:08:57TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/217642130Privatization And Decentralization - Solutions For The 21st CenturyMon, 03 Aug 2015 20:45:32 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/privatization-and
00:13:24TheBobZadekShownoEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comEvery once in a while, it’s good to be reminded o…Every once in a while, it’s good to be reminded of how bad the government is at its job. In the private sector, we occasionally learn about crooked CEOs cooking the books. In the public sector, mismanagement and corruption practically seem like requirements. Chris Edwards, curator of the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government project has masterfully documented the waste, graft and abuse across all Federal departments and agencies, from the Post Office to the Department of Defense. Read more at http://www.bobzadek.comtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570116Building a Bipartisan Coalition to Restore Local Spending Authority to the StatesMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:48 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/building-a-bipartisan
00:02:04TheBobZadekShownoBuilding a Bipartisan Coalition to Restore Local Spending Authority to the States by TheBobZadekShowBuilding a Bipartisan Coalition to Restore Local …Building a Bipartisan Coalition to Restore Local Spending Authority to the States by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570115No Strings Attached- Replacing “Grants-in-Aid" with Block GrantsMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/no-strings-attached-replacing
00:06:22TheBobZadekShownoNo Strings Attached- Replacing “Grants-in-Aid" with Block Grants by TheBobZadekShowNo Strings Attached- Replacing “Grants-in-Aid" wi…No Strings Attached- Replacing “Grants-in-Aid" with Block Grants by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570114Locavore’s eat locally grown food, why not spend locally-grown dollars locallyMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/locavores-eat-locally-grown
00:09:12TheBobZadekShownoLocavore’s eat locally grown food, why not spend locally-grown dollars locally by TheBobZadekShowLocavore’s eat locally grown food, why not spend …Locavore’s eat locally grown food, why not spend locally-grown dollars locally by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570112The “General Welfare” Clause - What Would the Founders DoMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-general-welfare-clause
00:09:20TheBobZadekShownoThe “General Welfare” Clause - What Would the Founders Do by TheBobZadekShowThe “General Welfare” Clause - What Would the Fou…The “General Welfare” Clause - What Would the Founders Do by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570111Is there hope Congress will reform itself?Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/is-there-hope-congress-will
00:04:14TheBobZadekShownoIs there hope Congress will reform itself? by TheBobZadekShowIs there hope Congress will reform itself? by The…Is there hope Congress will reform itself? by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570110Accountability in Federal versus State/Local Spending (AAC audio)Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/accountability-in-federal
00:03:51TheBobZadekShownoAccountability in Federal versus State/Local Spending (AAC audio) by TheBobZadekShowAccountability in Federal versus State/Local Spen…Accountability in Federal versus State/Local Spending (AAC audio) by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570109Creative Backscratching: Episodes in Porkbarrel SpendingMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/creative-backscratching
00:03:56TheBobZadekShownoCreative Backscratching: Episodes in Porkbarrel Spending by TheBobZadekShowCreative Backscratching: Episodes in Porkbarrel S…Creative Backscratching: Episodes in Porkbarrel Spending by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570108Washington Learns a Trick- Coercing States With “Free Money”Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/washington-learns-a-trick
00:08:12TheBobZadekShownoWashington Learns a Trick- Coercing States With “Free Money” by TheBobZadekShowWashington Learns a Trick- Coercing States With “…Washington Learns a Trick- Coercing States With “Free Money” by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216570107Bob’s Opening Monologue, Introducing the Honorable James L. BuckleyMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:56:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bobs-opening-monologue-1
00:03:20TheBobZadekShownoBob’s Opening Monologue, Introducing the Honorable James L. Buckley by TheBobZadekShowBob’s Opening Monologue, Introducing the Honorabl…Bob’s Opening Monologue, Introducing the Honorable James L. Buckley by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/216569219Full Interview With The Honorable James L. BuckleyMon, 27 Jul 2015 15:49:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with-the-honorable-james-l-buckley
00:52:11TheBobZadekShownoBob hosts a very special guest and elder statesman in the truest sense of the term, Senator James Buckley. In addition to acting as U.S. Senator from New York (1971-1977), Buckley’s distinctions include serving as a Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and as President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which broadcasts news, information, and analysis to countries "where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed.” His freedom-fighting efforts have spanned the better part of a century, and yet he is still producing some of the freshest ideas in the public policy arena. His latest book, “Saving Congress from Itself", was sent to every member of the U.S. Senate, and we had better hope that each and every one of them reads it. Learn how the Federal government usurps state and local legislative functions through provision of “goodies”, i.e., subsidies, or “grants-in-aid,” with onerous strings attached. The 10th Amendment is being trampled. Are you going to stand for it? Bob hosts a very special guest and elder statesma…Bob hosts a very special guest and elder statesman in the truest sense of the term, Senator James Buckley. In addition to acting as U.S. Senator from New York (1971-1977), Buckley’s distinctions include serving as a Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and as President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which broadcasts news, information, and analysis to countries "where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed.” His freedom-fighting efforts have spanned the better part of a century, and yet he is still producing some of the freshest ideas in the public policy arena. His latest book, “Saving Congress from Itself", was sent to every member of the U.S. Senate, and we had better hope that each and every one of them reads it. Learn how the Federal government usurps state and local legislative functions through provision of “goodies”, i.e., subsidies, or “grants-in-aid,” with onerous strings attached. The 10th Amendment is being trampled. Are you going to stand for it? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566525Bob's Opening Monologue, "Who Made You The Boss?”Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:53:19 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bobs-opening-monologue-who
00:03:22TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566512What’s Wrong With The Regulatory State? In A Word, “Coercion"Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:53:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/whats-wrong-with-the
00:06:34TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566502How Lack Of Competition Breeds Government UnaccountabilityMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:53:12 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-lack-of-competition-breeds
00:03:38TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566495CEI’s Mission - Increase Awareness Of The Regulatory StateMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:53:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ceis-mission-increase
00:10:10TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566481What Regulatory Agencies Are The Biggest Offenders?Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:53:04 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/what-regulatory-agencies-are
00:03:32TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566472The Regulatory State Usurps The Power Of Congress; Congress Abdicates Its Responsibility.Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:53:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-regulatory-state-usurps
00:04:48TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566458How The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Didn’t Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste.”Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:57 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-the-consumer-financial
00:03:06TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566452The Potential Renaissance From Removing Regulatory Uncertainty; And The Public Choice PerspectiveMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-potential-renaissance-from
00:04:09TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566441Why Business Owners Care About Making The Right Decisions. And Why Bureaucrats Don'tMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:49 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/why-business-owners-care-about
00:03:47TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566427No One Person Can Make A Bottle Of Whiskey. Lawson Bader On CEI’s Latest Film Project, *I, Whiskey*Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:45 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/no-one-person-can-make-a
00:03:36TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566407Prices In Markets And Lack Of Prices And Risk In GovernmentMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:41 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/prices-in-markets-and-lack-of
00:01:59TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566395CEI’s Lawsuit Against Body Scanners & ClosingMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:37 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ceis-lawsuit-against-body
00:03:06TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/215566384Full Interview With CEI President Lawson BaderMon, 20 Jul 2015 18:52:33 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with-cei
00:51:56TheBobZadekShownoWhat does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.What does whiskey have to do with encroaching reg…What does whiskey have to do with encroaching regulation and bureaucracy? Fortunately, for most of history, the answer has been "very little," as the two domains have remained relatively separate. Distilleries have cooperated peacefully, at least by proxy, with millions of other intermediate producers to yield a variety of complex end products, each with distinct tastes, undertones, and trademarks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute seeks to keep these entrepreneurial energies flowing, unimpeded by regulators who know little about the underlying industries and transactions they seek to control. Lawson Bader, whiskey aficionado and President of CEI, thought this point should be made even more clearly, in documentary form – continuing a video series originally based on Leonard Read's classic work, I, Pencil. Lawson joins Bob to talk about a new crowdfunding campaign to support the I, Whiskey project: a full-length documentary to bring the spontaneous order of the free market to life, through the story of a simple bottle of whiskey. Sit back and listen with a tumbler of your favorite spirit.
Bonus topics include CEI's current lawsuit against the TSA, strategies for rolling back the administrative state, and how to stay sane in a regulation-obsessed area like the Bay Area.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443443Bob's Opening Monologue: Introducing America's Greatest Historian of the Revolutionary WarMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:49 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bobs-opening-monologue
00:03:29TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443439Founders: Traitors Or Patriots?Mon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/founders-traitors-or-patriots
00:04:07TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443434Thomas Fleming on What Divided Jefferson and WashingtonMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/thomas-fleming-on-what-divided
00:04:17TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443431The Greatest Man (and Greatest Office) On EarthMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-greatest-man-and-greatest
00:07:55TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443427Washington's Leadership In Two AnecdotesMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/washingtons-leadership-in-two
00:04:29TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443421Real Clear Radio Hour with Bill Frezza and Bob Zadek - Listen this Saturday!Mon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:33 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/real-clear-radio-hour-with
00:01:27TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443418Washington vs. Jefferson: Strengths & WeaknessesMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/washington-vs-jefferson
00:11:08TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443410General Washington's Winning Tactic: Protract the WarMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/general-washingtons-winning
00:03:16TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443406Theory vs. Practice: Executive Overcomes the Committee On CommitteesMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:24 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/theory-vs-practice-executive
00:05:45TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443398James Madison's Backstabbing of George WashingtonMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/james-madisons-backstabbing-of
00:02:28TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/213443394Full Interview with Thomas FlemingMon, 06 Jul 2015 05:37:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with-thomas-fleming
00:52:53TheBobZadekShownoThis Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country…This Fourth of July, as we reflect on our country's origins, some may be tempted to look upon the Founding Fathers with a reverence otherwise reserved for saints or the founders of great religions. Past generations erected the “Washington” Monument in “Washington” D.C. to honor and symbolize the resoluteness of the man as both a leading general in the Revolutionary War and our nation's first President. Likewise, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence – the rallying cry of the American Revolution – are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in honor of the man who penned them. However, these mythologies are incomplete according to Thomas Fleming, a historian and novelist who has picked apart the American Revolution from more than a few angles. His latest book, *The Great Divide: The Conflict Between Washington and Jefferson that Defined a Nation*, cuts through the typical "airbrushing" of historical founding figures to reveal the political treachery that truly characterized the era. Fleming joins Bob this Sunday, for a special Fourth (Fifth) of July episode. Call in with your questions for one of the foremost experts on the riveting story of American Independence.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685373Bob’s monologue: "Government, get out of my intestine.”Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:17 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bobs-monologue-government-get
00:03:05TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685371Why Should Government Regulate Food At All?Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/why-should-government-regulate
00:04:27TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685367Transfats: A Case Study In Food RegulationTue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/transfats-a-case-study-in-food
00:08:32TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685364Warning Labels on Food & *The Presumption Of Liberty*Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:12 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/warning-labels-on-food-the
00:05:00TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685359The Great Soft Drink Wars - Berkeley's Beverage TaxTue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:11 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-great-soft-drink-wars
00:02:07TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685353Regressive Sugar Taxes, Nutritional Paternalism, & Added vs. Natural SugarTue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:09 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/regressive-sugar-taxes
00:06:04TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685346What's the Deal with Foie Gras?Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:07 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/whats-the-deal-with-foie-gras
00:05:21TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685345Boston Caller's Libertarian Purity Test: What About Dog Meat?Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:06 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boston-callers-libertarian
00:01:43TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685338The World's Bravest Raisin Farmer: Horne v. USDATue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:04 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-worlds-bravest-raisin
00:08:38TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685335The Food Freedom Life Cycle & Importance of Food Freedom To Sustainable Health & WellbeingTue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:02 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-food-freedom-life-cycle
00:05:05TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/212685332Full interview with Baylen Linnekin of the Keep Food Legal FoundationTue, 30 Jun 2015 19:27:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with-baylen
00:52:17TheBobZadekShownoFreedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recen…Freedom-lovers everywhere are lamenting the recent Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell – perhaps the final blow to the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare (or as it may soon be known, SCOTUSCare). There is a silver lining, however, in the form another recent Supreme Court decision, in Horne v. USDA, which upheld the constitutional protections of raisin growers' personal property from takings by the USDA. Baylen Linnekin is Executive Director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, an adjunct professor at both American University and George Mason Law School, and a frequent contributor to Reason Magazine. Linnekin submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Horne case, and his arguments were mirrored in the majority opinion – authored by none other than John Roberts – arguing that the USDA cannot require raisin growers to surrender a portion of their crop for the "public purpose" of stabilizing the raisin market. The ruling is a victory to all of those cherish "the right of every American to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of their own choosing." Bob and Baylen also look at the many ways our food freedoms are still being restricted. You won't leave hungry after this episode of the show of ideas not attitude.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968423Bob's introduction to eminent domainThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bobs-introduction-to-eminent
00:02:46TheBobZadekShownoBob's introduction to eminent domain by TheBobZadekShowBob's introduction to eminent domain by TheBobZad…Bob's introduction to eminent domain by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968419Ilya Somin on Narrow vs. Broad Interpretations of Public Use in the Kelo CaseThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:18 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-narrow-vs-broad
00:03:45TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on Narrow vs. Broad Interpretations of Public Use in the Kelo Case by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on Narrow vs. Broad Interpretations of…Ilya Somin on Narrow vs. Broad Interpretations of Public Use in the Kelo Case by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968413Ilya Somin Responds to "Holdouts" Argument For Eminent DomainThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-responds-to
00:03:53TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin Responds to "Holdouts" Argument For Eminent Domain by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin Responds to "Holdouts" Argument For Em…Ilya Somin Responds to "Holdouts" Argument For Eminent Domain by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968405Ilya Somin Abuse on the Uses and Abuses of Eminent DomainThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-abuse-on-the-uses
00:05:14TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin Abuse on the Uses and Abuses of Eminent Domain by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin Abuse on the Uses and Abuses of Eminen…Ilya Somin Abuse on the Uses and Abuses of Eminent Domain by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968399Ilya Somin on What Happened To Susette Kelo's HomeThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:10 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-what-happened-to
00:05:09TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on What Happened To Susette Kelo's Home by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on What Happened To Susette Kelo's Hom…Ilya Somin on What Happened To Susette Kelo's Home by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968390Ilya Somin on Historical Precedent for Eminent Domain – What Would The Founders Do?Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:06 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-historical
00:03:26TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on Historical Precedent for Eminent Domain – What Would The Founders Do? by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on Historical Precedent for Eminent Do…Ilya Somin on Historical Precedent for Eminent Domain – What Would The Founders Do? by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968386Ilya Somin on How to Fight Back Against Eminent DomainThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:03 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-how-to-fight
00:04:16TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on How to Fight Back Against Eminent Domain by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on How to Fight Back Against Eminent D…Ilya Somin on How to Fight Back Against Eminent Domain by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968376Ilya Somin on the Public Choice #Fail of Eminent Domain CasesThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:18:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-the-public
00:03:01TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on the Public Choice #Fail of Eminent Domain Cases by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on the Public Choice #Fail of Eminent …Ilya Somin on the Public Choice #Fail of Eminent Domain Cases by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968368A Caller on the "Just Price" of a HomeThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:17:57 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/a-caller-on-the-just-price-of
00:04:02TheBobZadekShownoA Caller on the "Just Price" of a Home by TheBobZadekShowA Caller on the "Just Price" of a Home by TheBobZ…A Caller on the "Just Price" of a Home by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968361Bob and Ilya Somin Discuss What "Fair Market Value" Means when Unique Land is at StakeThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:17:55 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/bob-and-ilya-somin-discuss
00:02:35TheBobZadekShownoBob and Ilya Somin Discuss What "Fair Market Value" Means when Unique Land is at Stake by TheBobZadekShowBob and Ilya Somin Discuss What "Fair Market Valu…Bob and Ilya Somin Discuss What "Fair Market Value" Means when Unique Land is at Stake by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968355Ilya Somin on Eminent Domain Politics Making Strange BedfellowsThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:17:52 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-eminent-domain
00:02:16TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on Eminent Domain Politics Making Strange Bedfellows by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on Eminent Domain Politics Making Stra…Ilya Somin on Eminent Domain Politics Making Strange Bedfellows by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968347Ilya Somin on the Legislative Response the Kelo v. City of New LondonThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:17:49 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-the-legislative
00:05:37TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on the Legislative Response the Kelo v. City of New London by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on the Legislative Response the Kelo v…Ilya Somin on the Legislative Response the Kelo v. City of New London by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210968336Ilya Somin on Judicial Errors & Misinterpretation in Kelo v. City of New LondonThu, 18 Jun 2015 22:17:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/ilya-somin-on-judicial-errors
00:02:28TheBobZadekShownoIlya Somin on Judicial Errors & Misinterpretation in Kelo v. City of New London by TheBobZadekShowIlya Somin on Judicial Errors & Misinterpretation…Ilya Somin on Judicial Errors & Misinterpretation in Kelo v. City of New London by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/210690496Iya Somin on the Grasping Hand of Eminent DomainWed, 17 Jun 2015 03:30:58 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/iya-somin-on-the-grasping-hand-of-eminent-domain
00:52:33TheBobZadekShownoPerhaps you remember the story of Susette Kelo, the owner of the "Little Pink House" in New London, Connecticut that was condemned to make way for an economic development project led by Pfizer. Maybe you were even a part of the public backlash – larger than any other stemming from a Supreme Court decision in recent memory. Ten years after the Justices voted 5-4 to uphold city's abuse of eminent domain, we can start to look at the impact of this major precedent with implications for all of our property rights and individual sovereignty. The question still remains: If the government can take your house to provide land for another party's private economic benefit, what can't it do? In his new book, *The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain*, Ilya Somin offers the definitive account of the case as it has impacted broader trends in American jurisprudence. Somin joins Bob to expose the special interests that are preventing effective eminent domain reforms at various levels of government. He also reveals how pivotal groups like the Institute for Justice have been in raising awareness about this issue, and how their efforts have translated into genuine change. Our property rights are at stake – Somin's message is an important one if we are going to resist the grasping hand of eminent domain.Perhaps you remember the story of Susette Kelo, t…Perhaps you remember the story of Susette Kelo, the owner of the "Little Pink House" in New London, Connecticut that was condemned to make way for an economic development project led by Pfizer. Maybe you were even a part of the public backlash – larger than any other stemming from a Supreme Court decision in recent memory. Ten years after the Justices voted 5-4 to uphold city's abuse of eminent domain, we can start to look at the impact of this major precedent with implications for all of our property rights and individual sovereignty. The question still remains: If the government can take your house to provide land for another party's private economic benefit, what can't it do? In his new book, *The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain*, Ilya Somin offers the definitive account of the case as it has impacted broader trends in American jurisprudence. Somin joins Bob to expose the special interests that are preventing effective eminent domain reforms at various levels of government. He also reveals how pivotal groups like the Institute for Justice have been in raising awareness about this issue, and how their efforts have translated into genuine change. Our property rights are at stake – Somin's message is an important one if we are going to resist the grasping hand of eminent domain.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301574Full Interview with Alex Nowrasteh on Open BordersMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with-alex
00:52:14TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301567"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses.."Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/give-me-your-tired-your-poor
00:03:11TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301565Which part do opponents of illegal immigration oppose, the illegality or the immigrant?Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:33 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/which-part-do-opponents-of
00:03:35TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301560The inherited privilege of anti-immigration positions: "They're taking our jobs!"Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:30 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-inherited-privilege-of
00:01:50TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301556The biggest economic misconception about immigrationMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:28 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-biggest-economic
00:05:52TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301550More economic misconceptions about immigrationMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:25 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/more-economic-misconceptions
00:05:53TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301544Build a wall around welfare, not the countryMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/build-a-wall-around-welfare
00:04:52TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301535How do U.S. assimilate new immigrants so well?Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:19 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/how-do-u-s-assimilate-new
00:02:53TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301529Does the U.S. let in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined?Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:17 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/does-the-u-s-let-in-more
00:05:52TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301525Caller asks why the left supports welfare for existing immigrants, not freer immigrationMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/caller-asks-why-the-left
00:03:35TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301518Reagan's amnesty and amnesty vs. open bordersMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:11 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/reagans-amnesty-and-amnesty-vs
00:04:35TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/209301512Hillary is for HillaryMon, 08 Jun 2015 02:42:08 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/hillary-is-for-hillary
00:03:23TheBobZadekShownoThe framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?The framers of the Declaration of Independence he…The framers of the Declaration of Independence held the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. Today, however, our political leaders stand idly by as many around the world are denied these rights and given no alternative to their repressive home regimes. The GOP wants to be known as the party of freedom and opportunity, but many of its leading presidential contenders wish to limit this good fortune to those who happen to have been born within our borders. Now, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of expanding amnesty for a large percentage of the 11 million undocumented U.S. residents, leaving Republicans struggling to appeal to hispanics without losing the approval of anti-immigration conservatives. Not a single Republican seeking the presidential nomination has yet to come out in favor of the one policy that could truly distinguish them in the eyes of both hispanics and freedom-loving conservatives: Opening the borders to all foreigners who desire to live by our laws. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration scholar at the Cato Institute and frequent guest on the show, has pointed out that such a policy has nothing to do with granting favors or expanding government. To the contrary, open borders merely allow the voluntary movement of people to the United States. He joins the program to go over the current crop of Republican candidates’ stances on immigration, and to provide them with the intellectual ammunition to go boldly where no Republican has gone before. The question is, will they listen?tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180367Environmentalism: Science, Religion or Both? (Opening Monologue)Sun, 31 May 2015 23:28:09 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/environmentalism-science
00:02:53TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180354Alex Trembath: How Technology Preserves the Environment By Making It Less ValuableSun, 31 May 2015 23:28:01 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/alex-trembath-how-technology
00:03:30TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180347Good news – Have We Reached "Peak Footprint" on the Environment?Sun, 31 May 2015 23:27:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/good-news-have-we-reached-peak
00:09:20TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180342Picking Energy Winners & Losers: Essential Boost or Fools Errand?Sun, 31 May 2015 23:27:52 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/picking-energy-winners-losers
00:12:45TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180327Trembath: The Fracking BreakthroughSun, 31 May 2015 23:27:47 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/trembath-the-fracking
00:09:18TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180315Will Wind and Solar Ever Power Our Economy?Sun, 31 May 2015 23:27:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/will-wind-and-solar-ever-power
00:03:08TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/208180297Alex Trembath on the Future of Clean Energy and the EnvironmentSun, 31 May 2015 23:27:29 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/alex-trembath-on-the-future-of-clean-energy-and-the-environment
00:52:31TheBobZadekShownoShortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthro…Shortly after its founding in 2003, The Breakthrough Institute helped forge a “BlueGreen Alliance” between labor unions and environmentalists to modernize America’s clean energy infrastructure. While this may sound like yet another instance of special interests profiting under the guise of environmental ethics, Breakthrough’s agenda in fact offers a refreshing alternative to the usual talking points about energy and the environment. More importantly, their scholars are fiercely independent. They have heralded “The Death of Environmentalism” (at least conceived of as a movement to limit growth of industry), and when nuclear power and natural gas are found to be cheaper than solar energy, Breakthrough Institute scholars don't hesitate to say so. Alex Trembath, a senior energy analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, has done much of the research into fracking and clean energy that undergirds their positions, and joins Bob in studio to defend a nuanced technocratic approach to energy and climate. Do we really need government to invest in the next generation of clean energy infrastructure, or should we leave it up to the market? tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172287The New American Exceptionalism (to The Rule Of Progress)Mon, 25 May 2015 19:25:07 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-new-american-exceptionalism-to-the-rule-of-progress
00:02:50TheBobZadekShownoThe New American Exceptionalism (to The Rule Of Progress) by TheBobZadekShowThe New American Exceptionalism (to The Rule Of P…The New American Exceptionalism (to The Rule Of Progress) by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172258The Great Fact Of Human ProgressMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:56 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-great-fact-of-human
00:05:56TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172256The Causes And Consequences Of Human ProgressMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:55 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-causes-and-consequences-of
00:14:39TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172251The Dangers of "Squeezing the Rich"Mon, 25 May 2015 19:24:53 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-dangers-of-squeezing-the
00:03:01TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172246Environmental Kuznets Curve: How Riches Improve the Health of the PlanetMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:52 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/environmental-kuznets-curve
00:04:00TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172243Is Income Inequality Rising Or Falling? Marian Tupy Squares off with PikettyMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:51 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/is-income-inequality-rising-or
00:07:35TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172241Opening Monologue - What Is Human Progress?Mon, 25 May 2015 19:24:50 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/opening-monologue-what-is
00:04:11TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172234Permissionless Innovation as the Driving Force of Human ProgressMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:48 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/permissionless-innovation-as
00:03:55TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172229What Water in Israel Proves About Pricing and Scarcity in the Modern WorldMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:46 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/what-water-in-israel-proves
00:04:28TheBobZadekShownoToo often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.Too often, political arguments begin with one per…Too often, political arguments begin with one person insinuating that his or her opponent deliberately wants to bring about a certain negative outcome, be it pollution, child labor, or an overall lower standard of living. We rarely frame our debates around the values almost all of us have in common, such as a clean planet, and abundant opportunity for future generations. This is where HumanProgress.org, a data-driven initiative of the Cato Institute, excels. Marian L. Tupy is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and the editor of Human Progress, which compiles easy-to-read charts and graphs showing the many ways we are advancing, even in terms of “progressive” values. Bob’s last show struck a pessimistic note, with Don Boudreaux lamenting the relative decline of freedom in the United States. This episode brings you the flip side – the good news about the rest of the world’s increase in freedom and prosperity. Tupy joins Bob to discuss the reason why capitalism is winning the war on poverty, while still losing the war of ideas.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/207172185Full interview with Marian TupyMon, 25 May 2015 19:24:27 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/full-interview-with-marian-tupy
00:52:24TheBobZadekShownoFull interview with Marian Tupy by TheBobZadekShowFull interview with Marian Tupy by TheBobZadekShowFull interview with Marian Tupy by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985093Opening Monologue: What everyone needs to understand about the economyMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:43 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/opening-monologue-what
00:03:10TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985089Boudreaux on the Two Kinds Of EntrepreneursMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:42 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boudreaux-on-the-two-kinds-of
00:04:02TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985087Boudreaux on the Demands of EntrepeneurshipMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:41 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boudreaux-on-the-demands-of
00:02:16TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985082Boudreaux on the Importance Of Property, Free Trade, & Sound MoneyMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:40 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boudreaux-on-the-importance-of
00:04:55TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985081Full Show: Don Boudreaux on Entrepreneurship, Economic Freedom & ProsperityMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:39 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/don-boudreaux-on-declining-american-freedom
00:51:45TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek (currently down due to a malicious hacking attack). Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek (currently down due to a malicious hacking attack). Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985078Boudreaux on Robert Reich and the Minimum WageMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:38 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boudreaux-on-robert-reich-and
00:15:44TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985068Boudreaux on President Obama Blaming ATMs for Slow GrowthMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:37 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boudreaux-on-president-obama
00:02:04TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/204985061Boudreaux on TPP, Cronyism, and Free Trade PartnershipsMon, 11 May 2015 17:56:36 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/boudreaux-on-tpp-cronyism-and
00:07:31TheBobZadekShownoMost people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. Most people tune out when academics speak in term…Most people tune out when academics speak in terms of regression analysis and “agent-based modeling.” Nonetheless, we want to understand the long-term economic trends that these methods seek to illuminate in order to plan for the future. Don Boudreaux is a master of making complex economic ideas comprehensible to the layperson. He provides this service free of charge every day for the thousands of visitors to his blog, Cafe Hayek. Boudreaux’s short but powerful letters to the editor are the stuff of any libertarian’s dreams – the equivalent of a Total Knock Out in boxing. The larger battle for economic freedom is not fought solely in public discussion forums like the WSJ editorial page – it’s being waged in academic journals and in the academic marketplace of ideas. Boudreaux recently edited the Fraser Institute’s *What America’s Decline in Economic Freedom Means for Entrepreneurship and Prosperity,* a volume of five essays, each thick with research that Don discusses with Bob and his audience on this show. tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875229Why Aren't Politicians More Frank?Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:24 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/why-arent-politicians-more
00:02:04TheBobZadekShownoWhy Aren't Politicians More Frank? by TheBobZadekShowWhy Aren't Politicians More Frank? by TheBobZadek…Why Aren't Politicians More Frank? by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875226The Good Old Days of Negative CampaigningMon, 04 May 2015 16:18:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-good-old-days-of-negative
00:01:06TheBobZadekShownoThe Good Old Days of Negative Campaigning by TheBobZadekShowThe Good Old Days of Negative Campaigning by TheB…The Good Old Days of Negative Campaigning by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875224Decoding "Fair Share"Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:23 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-fair-share
00:03:02TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Fair Share" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Fair Share" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Fair Share" by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875222Decoding "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation..."Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:22 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-i-cant-comment-on-an
00:01:57TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation..." by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "I can't comment on an ongoing investiga…Decoding "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation..." by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875221Decoding "No evidence for that..."Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:22 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-no-evidence-for-that
00:02:40TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "No evidence for that..." by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "No evidence for that..." by TheBobZadek…Decoding "No evidence for that..." by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875219Decoding "The American Dream"Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:22 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-the-american-dream
00:04:10TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "The American Dream" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "The American Dream" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "The American Dream" by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875217Decoding "Disingenuous"Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-disingenuous
00:02:31TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Disingenuous" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Disingenuous" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Disingenuous" by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875216Decoding "My position is evolving..."Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-my-position-is
00:01:53TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "My position is evolving..." by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "My position is evolving..." by TheBobZa…Decoding "My position is evolving..." by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875215Decoding "Listening Tours"Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:21 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-listening-tours
00:00:45TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Listening Tours" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Listening Tours" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Listening Tours" by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875214Decoding "Having A conversation about..."Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-having-a-conversation
00:02:11TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Having A conversation about..." by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Having A conversation about..." by TheB…Decoding "Having A conversation about..." by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875213Decoding Hillary ClintonMon, 04 May 2015 16:18:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-hillary-clinton
00:02:03TheBobZadekShownoDecoding Hillary Clinton by TheBobZadekShowDecoding Hillary Clinton by TheBobZadekShowDecoding Hillary Clinton by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875211Decoding "Let me be clear..."Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:20 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-let-me-be-clear
00:02:07TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Let me be clear..." by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Let me be clear..." by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Let me be clear..." by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875194Decoding "Ordinary Americans"Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:16 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-ordinary-americans
00:01:37TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Ordinary Americans" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Ordinary Americans" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Ordinary Americans" by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875192Decoding "Walk-Backs" and ApologiesMon, 04 May 2015 16:18:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-walk-backs-and
00:02:42TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Walk-Backs" and Apologies by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Walk-Backs" and Apologies by TheBobZade…Decoding "Walk-Backs" and Apologies by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875189Decoding "Working Americans"Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:15 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/decoding-working-americans
00:03:45TheBobZadekShownoDecoding "Working Americans" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Working Americans" by TheBobZadekShowDecoding "Working Americans" by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875188The Paradox Of Presidents DayMon, 04 May 2015 16:18:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/the-paradox-of-presidents-day
00:01:42TheBobZadekShownoThe Paradox Of Presidents Day by TheBobZadekShowThe Paradox Of Presidents Day by TheBobZadekShowThe Paradox Of Presidents Day by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875186What does it take to be a politician?Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/what-does-it-take-to-be-a
00:01:53TheBobZadekShownoWhat does it take to be a politician? by TheBobZadekShowWhat does it take to be a politician? by TheBobZa…What does it take to be a politician? by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875184Why Do Politicians Do It?Mon, 04 May 2015 16:18:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/why-do-politicians-do-it
00:01:48TheBobZadekShownoWhy Do Politicians Do It? by TheBobZadekShowWhy Do Politicians Do It? by TheBobZadekShowWhy Do Politicians Do It? by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875182Campaigns As Millions Of WordsMon, 04 May 2015 16:18:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/campaigns-as-millions-of-words
00:02:10TheBobZadekShownoCampaigns As Millions Of Words by TheBobZadekShowCampaigns As Millions Of Words by TheBobZadekShowCampaigns As Millions Of Words by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203875180Why You Must Read Dog WhistlesMon, 04 May 2015 16:18:13 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/why-you-must-read-dog-whistles
00:01:29TheBobZadekShownoWhy You Must Read Dog Whistles by TheBobZadekShowWhy You Must Read Dog Whistles by TheBobZadekShowWhy You Must Read Dog Whistles by TheBobZadekShowtag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/203863489Beltway Jargon Decoded with David MarkMon, 04 May 2015 14:55:14 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/beltway-jargon-decoded-with-david-mark
00:52:31TheBobZadekShownoOn any given night, television audiences can tune into an elaborate unscripted reality show in which the stakes are high, the stars are hungry, and the stage is global. No, this program is not *The Amazing Race* – it’s whatever happens to be on C-SPAN, MSNBC, or any other politically-focused news network, and politicians and pundits are its stars. The theater of politics is its own specialized arena, with jargon to match. David Mark and his co-author Chuck McCutcheon have been professional spectators (aka political journalists) of this show for decades, and have documented an elaborate vocabulary in their new political dictionary, “Dog-Whistles, Walk-backs and Washington Handshakes.” Much like a modern-day translation is needed to fully understand Shakespearean plays and sonnets, Mark and McCutcheon’s book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what’s really being said in political speeches, debates and interviews. David Mark is a San Francisco writer, and former senior editor of Politico. He joins Bob in the studio, just in time for the start of election season, to discuss his new book.On any given night, television audiences can tune…On any given night, television audiences can tune into an elaborate unscripted reality show in which the stakes are high, the stars are hungry, and the stage is global. No, this program is not *The Amazing Race* – it’s whatever happens to be on C-SPAN, MSNBC, or any other politically-focused news network, and politicians and pundits are its stars. The theater of politics is its own specialized arena, with jargon to match. David Mark and his co-author Chuck McCutcheon have been professional spectators (aka political journalists) of this show for decades, and have documented an elaborate vocabulary in their new political dictionary, “Dog-Whistles, Walk-backs and Washington Handshakes.” Much like a modern-day translation is needed to fully understand Shakespearean plays and sonnets, Mark and McCutcheon’s book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what’s really being said in political speeches, debates and interviews. David Mark is a San Francisco writer, and former senior editor of Politico. He joins Bob in the studio, just in time for the start of election season, to discuss his new book.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/202798912Rand Paul and Principles or Politics with Walter BlockMon, 27 Apr 2015 16:08:19 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/walter-block-on-rand-paul-and-libertarian-principles
00:52:36TheBobZadekShownoIf Rand Paul makes it past the Republican primaries, criticisms are sure to resurface regarding an obscure comment he made on CNN in 2010 about the libertarian principle of free association. Specifically, Paul took issue with the portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act limiting business owners’ freedom to discriminate (against their own economic interest) – a comment he has since walked back. Alas, pure libertarian principle often dictates seemingly indefensible positions, such as the right of bigots to refuse customers on a superficial basis. One man, however, has had the courage to consistently argue that the principle of freedom involved in these cases should trump our uneasiness about specific outcomes. That man is Professor Walter Block. Block has caused many a stir with his iconoclastic defenses of the seemingly indefensible. He joins Bob to discuss his recent endorsement of Rand Paul for President, in spite of the Republican candidate’s recent moves away from the principled libertarian positions of his father. Should libertarians get behind a lesser of two evils? Find out where you lie on Professor Block’s scale of libertarianism (where 100 is a “Perfect Block”).If Rand Paul makes it past the Republican primari…If Rand Paul makes it past the Republican primaries, criticisms are sure to resurface regarding an obscure comment he made on CNN in 2010 about the libertarian principle of free association. Specifically, Paul took issue with the portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act limiting business owners’ freedom to discriminate (against their own economic interest) – a comment he has since walked back. Alas, pure libertarian principle often dictates seemingly indefensible positions, such as the right of bigots to refuse customers on a superficial basis. One man, however, has had the courage to consistently argue that the principle of freedom involved in these cases should trump our uneasiness about specific outcomes. That man is Professor Walter Block. Block has caused many a stir with his iconoclastic defenses of the seemingly indefensible. He joins Bob to discuss his recent endorsement of Rand Paul for President, in spite of the Republican candidate’s recent moves away from the principled libertarian positions of his father. Should libertarians get behind a lesser of two evils? Find out where you lie on Professor Block’s scale of libertarianism (where 100 is a “Perfect Block”).tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/200867769Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer on Electronic Health RecordsWed, 15 Apr 2015 02:43:10 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/dr-jeffrey-a-singer-on-electronic-health-records
00:52:01TheBobZadekShownoDr. Singer, a general surgeon and adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute, joins Bob to discuss how the electronic health record-keeping mandate translates into longer wait times, less face time for patients with doctors, and an all-around less responsive and less humane health care system.Dr. Singer, a general surgeon and adjunct scholar…Dr. Singer, a general surgeon and adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute, joins Bob to discuss how the electronic health record-keeping mandate translates into longer wait times, less face time for patients with doctors, and an all-around less responsive and less humane health care system.tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/199853618David Boaz on The Libertarian MindWed, 08 Apr 2015 16:21:06 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/david-boaz-on-the-libertarian-mind
00:52:39TheBobZadekShownoThis Easter Sunday, Bob is doing a regular show with a very special guest – a walking embodiment of the libertarian ethos: David Boaz. Since joining the Cato Institute in 1981, Boaz has been pivotal in transforming the once-obscure think tank into a powerhouse – setting the gold standard for libertarian public policy analysis. More than 15 years ago, at a time when far fewer people had even heard of libertarianism, Boaz wrote and edited a volume titled *Libertarianism: A Primer.* This Easter Sunday, Bob is doing a regular show w…This Easter Sunday, Bob is doing a regular show with a very special guest – a walking embodiment of the libertarian ethos: David Boaz. Since joining the Cato Institute in 1981, Boaz has been pivotal in transforming the once-obscure think tank into a powerhouse – setting the gold standard for libertarian public policy analysis. More than 15 years ago, at a time when far fewer people had even heard of libertarianism, Boaz wrote and edited a volume titled *Libertarianism: A Primer.* tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/198428705Libertarian Trivia: Which War...?Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:50:44 +0000https://soundcloud.com/bobzadek/libertarian-trivia-which-war
00:01:05TheBobZadekShownoA wide-ranging conversation on the gaping flaws in our criminal justice system, with a demystification of the term "private prisons".A wi